British Sign Language Report 2025-26

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

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

This ministerial statement is also available in British Sign Language here at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUrDclFi9M01

This Government recognise the need for continuous improvement in the accessibility of Government communications for everyone, including the deaf community and BSL users, The British Sign Language (BSL) 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 British Sign Language in their communications with the public.

The first report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-british-sign-language-bsl-report-2022/the-british-sign-language-bsl-report-2022 was published on 31 July 2023, the second report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-sign-language-bsl-second-report-2023-to-2024/the-british-sign-language-bsl-report-2023-to-2024 on 17 December 2024—delayed due to the UK general election—and the third report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-sign-language-bsl-third-report-may-2024-to-april-2025 on 21 July 2025

The fourth BSL report, covering the period from 1 May 2025 to 30 April 2026, has now been published. A copy of this fourth report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-sign-language-bsl-fourth-report-may-2025-to-april-2026 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk, including in BSL.

The Government are committed to ensuring that Government communications are as inclusive and accessible as possible. For this reason, although the BSL Act requires only that a report will be published every three years, the Government committed to increase the frequency of reporting to an annual basis for the five years up to 2027.

This is also why, last year, to accompany the publication of the third BSL report, each ministerial Department was asked to produce a five year BSL plan https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/british-sign-language-reports-and-action-plans setting out how they plan to improve the use of BSL within their Departments. An update on those plans is published alongside this report.

This fourth report demonstrates an increase in the usage of BSL by Government Departments in public-facing communications since last year, reaching the highest number recorded since reporting started in 2023. The overall number of new BSL communications produced by Government Departments has increased by 41%—from 140 to 198—since the last reporting period and by 161% since the first reporting period, when overall numbers were 76.

This Government want to ensure 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 is why it is particularly encouraging to see that there has been an uplift in the amount of Government publications that have been translated into BSL. This includes plans, strategies, consultation documents or consultation responses. There has been an increase in the total number of these types of communications produced since the last reporting period, from 26 in 2025 to 87 in 2026.

By providing deaf BSL users with direct access to Government plans and consultations, this increase in accessible communication supports the Government commitment to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to engage with the Government on issues that will affect them.

However, we know there is still more to do and this Government are committed to going further. We will continue to work alongside the BSL Advisory Board https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/british-sign-language-bsl-advisory-board deaf people and their representative organisations, and Ministers across Government, including our lead Ministers for disability https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/lead-ministers-for-disability to continue to make tangible improvements for the deaf community.

We will continue to publish a report every year up to 2027, going further than the frequency required by the Act. The next report will be published in July 2027.

[HCWS248]

Timms Review: Interim Report

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to make this statement in relation to the Timms review of personal independence payment.

The Government have today published the interim report on behalf of the steering group for the Timms review. The report is available on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Government launched the Timms review to help ensure that PIP is fair and fit for the future in a changing world, and that it helps to support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment. The terms of reference set out that the review must operate within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections for future PIP expenditure, to ensure that it is there to support generations to come.

The review is being co-produced with disabled people and other experts. The review is led by me and two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE, to whom I am very grateful, and a steering group of 12 people, almost all disabled people, who together are bringing their expertise and experience to shape and lead the work. This is the first time the UK Government have undertaken co-production at this scale, and I am grateful for the commitment and passion of this group.

No single group can be representative of the full diversity of disabled people’s experiences. That is why the steering group has set up a wide range of evidence-gathering and engagement opportunities, to provide varied, accessible options for people with differing lived and learned experiences to get involved, and to ensure that the group can hear from as many different perspectives as possible.

The publication of the interim report today marks a significant milestone for the review and reflects its commitment to openness and transparency. The report has been published on gov.uk in a range of accessible versions, including braille, British Sign Language, audio, easy read, Welsh, large print and web-accessible formats.

The report does not contain recommendations or Government policy; it provides an account of the work of the review to date and explains how the review is being co-produced with people with lived and learned experience. It sets out the evidence considered so far and presents the review’s emerging themes. It also outlines the next steps for the review, including how over the coming months it will continue its evidence and engagement programme to test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in lived and learned experience.



The report delivers a clear message from the steering group, based on the evidence it has seen and heard so far: while PIP is widely valued as a benefit, it is no longer fit for purpose.

The report explains that PIP is often described as fundamental to managing the practical realities of a disability, from enabling access to transport and work, to supporting everyday activities. However, the experience of claiming PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising. For some people, the current design and delivery of PIP can create barriers to participation, including work, community life and everyday activities, rather than supporting independence and participation as intended.

The report is published alongside the findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses from disabled people, organisations that represent them, carers, clinicians, experts, Members of Parliament and other stakeholders. An existing evidence pack compiled by the Department for Work and Pensions, which was provided to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering, is also published. Neither of these are meant to act as a single source of the truth but are shared as part of the review’s commitment to openness and transparency.

As well as sincere thanks to the steering group for their commitment to this work, I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed their time, evidence and experience to the review so far. The review remains committed to ensuring that disabled people’s voices are central to this work as it looks ahead to developing, testing and refining its final recommendations, which are to be submitted to the Secretary of State in the autumn.

I look forward to updating the House on the progress of this crucial work.

[HCWS211]

Timms Review: Interim Report

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Timms review of the personal independence payment—to make it fair and fit for the future, both for the disabled people who need it and for the taxpayer.

Today, the Government are publishing an interim report on behalf of the review’s steering group. Copies will be placed in the Library in both Houses. We are committed to openness and transparency, so it sets out the evidence gathered so far and the emerging themes. It will inform the recommendations that will now be developed for the final report, which is to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn.

PIP was introduced more than a decade ago, but the benefit has never been fully reviewed. Since 2013, the number of people reporting a disability has increased significantly; patterns of disability and ill health have changed; and the workplace and wider society have evolved. We have seen a sharp rise in disability and long-term health conditions, including in mental ill health among younger people. The number of people receiving PIP has risen considerably and is forecast to continue growing. Against that backdrop, we are taking a fresh look at whether a system introduced 13 years ago still reflects the realities of modern life, supports independent living and is sustainable for the long term.

The Timms review is the first time that the UK Government have co-produced reforms on this scale. Our aim has been to have a review that is not just about disabled people, but shaped with disabled people. That means working together with disabled people and drawing on their lived experience. The review is led by three co-chairs—me, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson—and a steering group of 12 people we have recruited, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health. The group represents a range of impairments, as well as different parts of the country. No single group can represent the full range of experiences of disability, however, so we have set up a wide programme of engagement of varied, accessible opportunities in which people with differing lived and learned experiences can get involved.

The interim report brings together the evidence we have heard so far. It includes a summary of findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses, and an evidence pack provided by my Department to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering. It is the strongest evidence base ever assembled on PIP, on the assessment process and on the experiences of those who rely on the payment.

The interim report presents a clear message from the steering group: PIP is hugely valued for managing the additional costs of disability, but its current design and delivery are no longer fit for purpose. The assessment for PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising, and over 90% of those responding to the call for evidence reported that their experience of the PIP assessment was negative.

PIP provides a lifeline for many, but the fear of losing it on reassessment can create serious barriers to participation in work, community life and other everyday activities. That is the direct opposite of the intention, which has always been to support independence and participation. The report also highlights that the benefit has not kept up with wider changes since PIP was introduced.

This work will sit alongside the Milburn review into young people and work, which is looking at the factors behind rising economic inactivity among young people and how the Government can better support participation, opportunity and independence.

The interim report sets out the next steps for the review. It outlines the evidence and engagement programme over the coming months, and how the review will test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in experience.

We are not looking for quick fixes here. Reform needs to be guided by the evidence, if we are to address the underlying problems in the system and deliver lasting change. The Government are committed to a fairer system that has the trust of both the public and the people who rely on it. We have introduced the recording of health assessments by default, and we are substantially increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments to 30%, which reverses the sharp decline under the previous Government and helps to improve trust, accuracy and confidence in the assessments.

Our objective is to reform the system so that it works better for disabled people, while ensuring that it is sustainable for the long term, and that the support will be there for future generations who need it. The review has been tasked with developing recommendations that can be delivered within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for future PIP spending.

I thank everybody who has contributed time, evidence and expertise so far. I thank the steering group, including my fellow co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, for their support, commitment and determination. Crucially, I also thank the very large number of disabled people who have shared their experiences to help shape this work. The Government are committed to helping to remove the unnecessary barriers that disabled people too often face. This groundbreaking review is only part of that work, but it is an important part. We want to support disabled people in playing as full a part in society as possible. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence.

Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic. Last summer, the Government brought forward proposals for £5 billion of welfare savings, but 126 of their own Members rebelled, and within days, Ministers had abandoned the lot. The Timms review is a fig leaf draped over that failure—a review commissioned not to fix the system, but to get the Government through a difficult week.

A year on, what do we have? An interim report. Not a decision, not a reform, but a report about a report, with a promise of full findings in the autumn, and perhaps legislation at some later stage. Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants.

The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming. That is why, last month, we launched the Conservative party’s review of disability and sickness benefits. It is a root-and-branch review of a failing system that will look into who should get help, how they should be assessed, what form that help should take, the conditionality of support and how to control the level of overall spending. It asks a much more fundamental set of questions than this review. It sets out to make savings, as well as to build a better system.

The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone. We believe that people with milder health conditions are better served by treatment and support to get them into work than by being signed off for a lifetime on welfare. We would restrict access to sickness and disability benefits for those without a long-term connection to this country. We would bring the welfare bill down, because a welfare system that is unsustainable is no protection for those in genuine need.

Let me press the Minister on a few points, because there was very little detail in his statement. First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer. When will the Government actually take decisive action to get the system back on track? Secondly, the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee in June that the review has the power to recommend reductions, and that he had personally asked it to consider conditions such as anxiety and depression and neurodiverse conditions. Will the interim findings address whether PIP is the right benefit for those conditions, and will he tell the House whether he is ruling them in or ruling them out?

Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform? Would it not be better for the review to focus on identifying savings and restoring the long-term sustainability of the welfare system, rather than rubber-stamping an ever-growing bill for taxpayers?

Finally, the Milburn review concluded that the PIP system is failing to engage young disabled people in meaningful conversations about aspiration, challenges and the support that they need, yet the Government response appears to move precisely in the opposite direction by extending PIP award periods and reducing the frequency of contact between claimants and the system. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution?

Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value. The country cannot afford yet another year of dithering and delay, so I ask the Minister simply: when will the Government stop reviewing and start reforming?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has set out some trenchant criticisms of the system that his party set up and left behind, and the question in everybody’s mind is: why did the Conservatives not do anything about it? They had 14 years, and they left the problems to which he has referred. He should be apologising to the House for the system that the party he represents left behind. The biggest ever rise in the welfare bill was in their last year in government.

We previously heard that the Conservative party has a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, although nobody has any idea at all what those cuts will be. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that figure in his statement, so I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives now have a plan. He said that the Conservatives will review PIP; I welcome his belated recognition of the value of a review, but I do not know whether that means that they do not have a plan any more, or that they are throwing away the plan until they have carried out their review.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly expressed concern about the rising costs of the system—the public are rightly concerned about that—and particularly about the steep increase in the number of young people who are claiming, but we have set up work to address that problem. His party abandoned the growing number of young people applying for benefits; we will not do so. We are changing the question that the system is asking, and we are providing employment support and the youth guarantee to give young people the chance of a decent future.

The hon. Gentleman complained about the small number of face-to-face assessments, but that is what was left behind by the previous Government. Understandably, the system moved away from face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, but they were never brought back; that is the problem. We are increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which is an important and positive step. When we were upstairs debating a measure to facilitate greater face-to-face assessment, another shadow Minister said that it was a “nice to have”, rather than essential. We think that face-to-face assessments are key to rebuilding trust in the system, and that is why we are making the changes we are.

The system that the Conservatives left behind did not work for disabled people, and did not work for taxpayers. This review will bring forward proposals to fix the problems that they created.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that—as I have explained to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will have to leave straight after my question to chair Westminster Hall.

I thank my right hon. Friend for doing this very challenging piece of work. I think that the theme of fairness, for the people who need benefits and for taxpayers, is right. I have spoken to him briefly about the complaints from the Link Community Hub in Stradbroke in my constituency about the fact that people there with mental health conditions who are claiming PIP have drug abuse and alcohol abuse conditions, and are using PIP to fund those conditions. I have also complained about the young lads in their 20s driving around in Motability cars in Darnall; someone in the community has been paid to fill in the forms for them. On the other hand, so many constituents with really serious conditions get turned down for PIP, and can get it only if they struggle through the appeal system, sometimes without any help at all. So the system is not fair to anyone at present. I commend him for his suggestions, but is he going to have a real look at the different reasons people give for applying for PIP, and at how to respond to them properly?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think we have an appointment in the diary to talk about the issues that he has raised about his constituency, and his constituent who has drawn his attention to them. My hon. Friend is right that, at present, the system does not work properly for disabled people, and it does not give taxpayers confidence that the funding is being well used. We are determined to turn things around and to be fair to both, and I am grateful for his support for the efforts we are making.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I thank the Minister and everyone involved in the review for their hard work; this is a difficult subject, so it is much appreciated.

Today’s report has confirmed what perhaps all of us knew for many years, which is that PIP is supposed to act as a lifeline, but is administered through a broken system. Disabled people say that the application process actively disincentivises them from staying in work and maintaining an active social life. That is unfair on claimants and damaging for our economy, and it should worry us all. People deserve far better. We welcome this interim report, and we will engage constructively with the Government and play our role in the delivery of genuine improvements to the system. We want a society in which everyone can live independently and with dignity. We need the right support in place to ensure that disabled people and their carers can live their best possible lives, and the PIP system must be built around those principles.

We must, however, recognise the structural underlying challenges in the operation of the system. In 2024 prices, spending on incapacity and disability benefits rose from £34 billion a year in 2019 to £51 billion a year in 2024, under the previous Conservative Government. The number of those economically inactive due to long-term health issues rose from 2.1 million to more than 2.8 million in the same period, and the figure is stuck at a similarly high level now. This is seriously worrying, and the UK is largely an outlier in that regard. On current trends, the total bill for working-age sickness and disability benefits is projected to rise to £78 billion in 2030, which means that it will have more than doubled in 10 years.

Managing these economic pressures in an effective, fair and sustainable way is vital, so could the Minister expand a little on the work done to make sure that the evidence gathered is representative? Is work under way to address the root causes of these challenges in a holistic way, looking at everything from employment support to mental health? Can he also update the House on progress on merging PIP and universal credit incapacity benefit assessments?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review, and for his tribute to those who have put a great deal of work into it already, and who will be putting in a lot more between now and the autumn.

The hon. Gentleman is right to make the points that the system is not working well for disabled people at the moment, and that its costs are rising rapidly in a way that is of concern to many, including, rightly, taxpayers. He is right to highlight that this benefit, which is supposed to contribute to independence and participation, too often presents a barrier to those things, because so many people are worried that if they undertake an activity, the Department for Work and Pensions will say, when they get reassessed, “Oh, so you didn’t need your benefit after all, then,” and take it away. There is striking evidence of the scale of the concern about going to work, or taking part in exercise or sport. The current system presents significant barriers, and we want to address those. There are, absolutely, concerns about the rising costs, which we also need to address. All those factors will be in the minds of the steering group as we progress with the review, ahead of our final report in autumn.

The steering group, as I mentioned, is made up almost entirely of disabled people. The concern about the financial sustainability of this benefit is of great concern to them as well, because if it is deemed to be not financially sustainable then there is a risk to its future. We need the support to be present for the long term for the large number of people for whom it is vital.

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

I thank the Minister for his work and look forward to welcoming him to Graeae theatre in my constituency, which is an exemplar of how to support disabled people to work and fully participate. In the discussions he has had so far, is he looking at adaptive technology? Money can be one of the barriers to living a full life, but there are now new technologies that can sometimes be in place of some of the funding that has been available for people to buy things themselves. Is he having any discussions with the steering group on that issue?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are doing quite a lot of work in the Department specifically on assistive technology. In fact, the Secretary of State was at a roundtable recently with representatives of the tech industry. One problem is that the technology is moving on rapidly but a lot of people do not know about it. People are not even aware of the technology that is already in our phones and available without any extra charge. We are doing quite a lot of work on that at the moment. I hope we will, later this year, be able to issue a call for evidence on how to do a better job on exactly the areas my right hon. Friend highlights.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his statement. What a shame he has been asked to look at this issue only now, when his party had 14 long years in Opposition to work out what they wanted to do. Given that he acknowledges the system needs reform—as every new Government acknowledge—does he accept that, in today’s world, a system of cash payments to some people with conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, where half the claimants are aged between 16 to 24, is not what they need most? Indeed, some of them have no financial needs at all. Does he accept that the money would be best saved—will he confirm that there will be savings?—and some of it invested in better health and community services, technology, and incentivising businesses to employ the six in 10 young people who are not in education, training or work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital. We will not be moving away from the importance of that, but I think there is a question about whether the process can also point people towards help that may be valuable to them in addition to, or in some cases perhaps instead of, a cash payment. There is help and support that people need, and I think the process could help to point people to that. One problem people have had to contend with is the terrible NHS waiting lists, which thankfully are now being reduced, but the system may be able to point people to the right place in the health service. We are looking at all those issues and we will come back with recommendations in our final report.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I welcome the review’s direction of travel. As we know, the PIP system is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it has created much mistrust, stress and worry. More importantly, it has created a hostile environment for disabled people. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, which the Minister attended along with representatives of the steering group, we heard from disabled people about their experiences, and from organisations including Mencap and the Royal National Institute of Blind People that the assessment and PIP do not truly reflect or recognise the lived experience of many disabled people. As we move forward into the second phase of the review, can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to have co-production at the heart of this process? The Minister should be commended for the work he is doing in co-producing the review. It is the first time the Department has taken that step, so we really cannot take lessons from the Conservative party. Can he reassure me that co-production will remain at the heart of this work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to her work as the chair of the APPG on disability, and I am grateful to her for her welcome to us the other week. She is absolutely right. I very much hope that people with sight impairments and others looking at the review will feel that the Government have listened to the points that have been made for a long time. I assure her that co-production will be at the heart of the rest of the work as well. It was, of course, a decision of this House that the review should be co-produced. We have worked very hard to ensure that we are properly co-producing it. I think we are gaining the benefits of that approach and that the outcome from this exercise will be significantly better because it is a co-produced review.

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

Does the review plan to look into the question of what happens when something goes wrong in the arrangements for a disabled person receiving PIP or universal credit? This time last week I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions the fact that my casework team had been trying for six months to get an answer on behalf of someone who lost PIP and UC. We had a holding letter in February, but we have still had no substantive reply and this lady is getting more and more desperate. We did write to the Minister on 8 June. I know he has been very busy, but he should be receiving a letter, if he has not already, from the Leader of the House. When he deals with that individual case, will it perhaps serve as a guide to what is needed more generally to be able to communicate on behalf of our constituents?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I shall look out for the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and I hope he will receive a reply in short order. He is right that the system needs to work well for people to be confident in it. One thing he may welcome is that we have just started recording by default the assessments for PIP—the focus in the review is on PIP specifically—partly so that when something does go badly wrong, and his constituent’s case may well be an example of that, we can look back at what happened in the assessment and ensure that that mistake does not happen again.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his work with disability groups as part of the review. As I saw during the APPG on disability roundtable and at the roundtable in Newcastle that I organised, the lived experience of those affected by disability must drive the reform of the disability benefit system. The report highlights that that lived experience is also shaped by the misinformation, disinformation and confusion around disability benefits as part of the wider public debate, which can lead to the demonisation of those with disabilities. It can also lead to unrealistic assumptions and expectations in communities more broadly. What can he do as part of his review to address that misinformation, disinformation and confusion, and ensure a stronger, more rigorous and better evidenced public debate?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and she is absolutely right. It has certainly been very clear in our review that there is concern among disabled people about some of the misinformation that she refers to. We want to ensure that correct and clear information is provided to people, and that there is clarity on the eligibility criteria for PIP and the assessment process. I hope that is going to help, but I think there will need to be other efforts, and we will work with disabled people’s organisations and disability charities to significantly improve the position.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

There is a fundamental question here about what our priority is. Is it to reduce the bill, to reduce the amount of money that we are spending, or to ensure that disabled people can access all the human rights that the rest of us can, access society and be supported? We must recognise the extra costs of disability. What is the priority? The Conservatives are very clear: their priority is to reduce the bill. Our priority is to ensure that disabled people can live full, pleasant, excellent and wonderful lives. I appreciate the really hard work that has been put in by the team who have been involved in the co-production. May I continue to encourage the Minister to talk to Social Security Scotland and our colleagues in the SNP Government about their experiences of the adult disability payment and whether the changes that have been implemented in Scotland would make a positive difference to those claiming PIP?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Our objective must be both the things that the hon. Lady refers to. We need a system that works well for disabled people and that helps to remove unnecessary barriers that too often hold them back, but we also need to create a system that has the confidence of taxpayers, which is the objective of our review. We are certainly very interested in what has been happening in Scotland, and in the work of Social Security Scotland. At one of our forthcoming expert evidence sessions, we will hear from Edel Harris, who, as the hon. Lady knows, has recently undertaken a review of the adult disability payment in Scotland. We are very keen to monitor what has happened there.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the review and thank disabled people, who have shaped it. Last year, I was pleased that the Minister accepted my amendment to the Universal Credit Bill to ensure that co-production with disabled people was put at the heart of the Timms review before any future changes to PIP were brought forward. Today’s rich and important findings demonstrate why “nothing about us without us” is so crucial in shaping Government disability policy. How does the Minister plan to ensure that colleagues across his Department—as well as Alan Milburn and Sir Charlie Mayfield, who are reviewing ways to close the employment gap for disabled people and young people with mental health problems—learn from the Timms review and integrate the voices of disabled people? Will the Minister agree to come back to the House with the full findings of his report and to ensure that changes to PIP are joined up with the findings of the two other reviews, so that there is strategic coherence across Government policy on getting more disabled people into work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her amendment. As she rightly says, that was what took us down the road of co-production, which I think has been a very fruitful avenue for the review. Central Government have certainly not done co-production on this scale before—I am not sure that we have done co-production at all in the past—but we are undertaking this review in a thoroughly co-produced way. It has been a very positive experience, including for the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will want to learn the lessons for future work. One thing that we will be doing is evaluating this review, so that those lessons can be properly documented and taken account of in the future.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to stay in touch with Sir Charlie Mayfield, who leads the Keep Britain Working review, and Alan Milburn, whose work I have referred to. I spoke to Alan the other day, and we will ensure that all this work is taken together. I am pleased that both Alan and Sir Charlie Mayfield have been talking to disabled people’s organisations to contribute to their work, and I know that will continue.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), I welcome the broad direction of the review. I acknowledge that this is happening in the context of some people attempting to create a hostile environment—I hope Count Binface will deal with one source of that hostile environment in the weeks to come—but there is also the issue of language, as I think the Minister acknowledges. We should use less of the language of “welfare benefits” and “dependency”, and more of the language of “investment in people”, particularly investment in mental health services. Will he work with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are supported before they need benefits, and that we invest in people so that their talents can be enjoyed in the workplace?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of language. This is a topic that the organisation Turn2us has been thinking about lately. One of the things that I am pleased about is that my job title is Minister for Social Security. I think that I am the first Minister to have “Social Security” in their job title since the abolition of the old Department of Social Security at the end of the 1990s. I think “social security” is a good term, and this review is about delivering that.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all the work that he has done, especially on the co-production front, which has been so important to disabled communities. One of my constituents had his PIP disallowed on renewal over a late form. He was reassessed, with no change to his condition, and scored zero points, which was upheld on review. It was only at tribunal, where my team represented him, that he finally won the highest rate of daily living support, having gone two whole years without any help. What reassurances can the Minister give me that this type of dehumanising failure will not be seen under the new system?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is certainly our objective that the dehumanising aspects of the current system—he describes an example very well—should not be a feature of the future system. That is the clear aim of this review. The case to which he refers is not unusual, and many hon. Members will have similar examples from their own constituencies. The fact that we are now recording assessments by default could help us to find out why that assessment went so badly wrong. I really hope that we can improve things and rebuild confidence among disabled people and taxpayers that the system is doing the job we need it to do.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I have heard from constituents of different ages who are concerned about the planned changes to PIP, and who highlight its importance in enabling them to work and to play a full part in society. I want to ask specifically about young people under the age of 25. What mechanisms are being put in place as part of this review to ensure that young people with cancer and other disabilities are considered, and that their distinct experiences are properly accounted for and heard as part of this process?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) just gave us an example—is that people have applied, the outcome has been wrong, and there has been a long, drawn-out process involving an appeal to get to the right answer. I hope that we will be able to develop an assessment that much more frequently comes up with the right answer the first time round, and that recognises where somebody has additional costs as a result of cancer and is therefore eligible for PIP. We will be talking to representatives of people with cancer, including young people, as part of our work, and I hope we will be able to come forward with recommendations that deal with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is very welcome to hear of the work that the Minister is doing. He will know that one of our long-standing concerns is that one of the missing pieces of this puzzle is employers’ attitude and approach to working with disabled people, and some of the misinformation that they might hold about things like PIP. He will know that disabled people often have to make 60% more job applications to get even an interview, and that one in three reports experiencing direct discrimination in the workplace. Can he update us on the response that he has had from employers about the role that they can play in changing the situation and recognising the talent that exists within our disabled communities?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is at the heart of the Keep Britain Working review that Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading at the moment. He produced his report in November, which was directly about what more employers can do to ensure that their workplaces are accessible to disabled people, so that people who run into a health problem or disability in the course of their work do not automatically have to leave work, as too often happens. The reasons for that concern are exactly the ones that my hon. Friend raises: huge talent is too often being wasted.

I am pleased that after Sir Charlie’s report was completed, he started working with 75 vanguard employers to develop the ideas in the report. I understand that the number is now up to about 250; there is a lot of employer enthusiasm here because they recognise how important it is. Quite often, the problem is that employers are not sure what to do in a difficult situation when somebody has a health problem. That review will take us a long way forward on exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

The Timms review pledges to develop ambitious, evidence-based recommendations that are practical, deliverable and capable of delivering meaningful change. I welcome the interim report. The devolution of social security to Wales is a prime contender, as it would allow the creation and delivery of social protections that better reflect the needs of our communities in Wales, as part of the Welsh benefits system. That is widely supported in Wales, including by disabled people’s organisations. Can the Minister assure me that the Timms review will not let the opportunity for devolution pass?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We certainly do not want to let any opportunities from the review pass; it is a one-off groundbreaking review, and we want to make the most of it. This morning, I had a good conversation with the new Minister in Wales, and we have agreed that we will work closely together. It is important that voices from Wales are properly heard in the review. A member of our steering group is a former board member of Disability Wales, and I want to make the most of the expertise and experience from Wales in the course of the work.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his update and his collaborative approach to the co-production process, as well as the time he spent with me and colleagues earlier in the year to discuss the experiences of those living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s. The Minister mentioned that disabled people find the assessment dehumanising and stressful; that is particularly the case for those who live with fluctuating conditions and invisible symptoms, for whom no two days may be the same. Will the Minister provide an update on how the lived realities of those with fluctuating conditions will be better reflected in any new assessment process?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help in the discussions and her continuing interest in the review. Criticisms of the way that the current assessment process handles fluctuating conditions are probably the most frequently aired criticism of how the system works at the moment, and it is important that we come up with something that does that job well. We have talked to a lot to people with Parkinson’s, for example, and yesterday my two co-chairs and I were at the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The need to do the job well for people with fluctuating and degenerative conditions is at the centre of our concern, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do the good job that my hon. Friend wants us to do.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and the steering group for their work. Their findings that disabled people find the assessment process dehumanising and stressful reflect the conversations that my constituents have had with me. Paragraph 64 of the review finds that

“the reliance on PIP has likely increased due to difficulty accessing vital services and support, such as community mental health services”

and Access to Work. Does he agree that the reform of disability benefits in the future must go hand in hand with improving those support services, such as by widening Access to Work and, in particular, cutting NHS mental health waiting lists, which are far too long? The Minister referred to falling waiting lists; I gently say to him that while physical waiting lists are falling, mental heath waiting lists have not been falling. The longest waits have increased since last December, and the Government need to get a grip on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that the NHS is delivering on all aspects of its work. There is a big problem with long delays and backlogs in the Access to Work scheme. We have recently announced the recruitment of an additional 480 people, which means that the number of people working on Access to Work applications will have more than doubled since the general election. We are confident that that will enable us to eradicate the backlog for Access to Work by September of next year. My hon. Friend is right that all those services need to work well and support people together. That is our aim.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and the recognition that, for many people, claiming PIP is not an easy process; it is deeply stressful, particularly reapplications and reassessments or delays on appeal. There are appalling levels of stress in the community as a whole, and I hope that this can be addressed seriously in the future. Page 8 of the interim report mentions that future PIP spending will be within the envelope predicted by the OBR. Does that mean that there is going to be some form of cash limiting for PIP, or does the report accept the principle that personal independence payments—which are incredibly valuable—are based on an assessment of the needs of people, rather than a Treasury-based limit on spending?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the degree of stress involved in the process. I spoke to somebody at a roundtable in Northern Ireland who told me she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the course of her working life, which came as a terrible shock and was a traumatic experience. A few years later, her condition had deteriorated and she had to apply for PIP; she said that the experience of applying was as traumatising as the original diagnosis. The effects that people have suffered are very serious.

The terms of reference for the review require us to stay within the currently projected OBR spending on PIP. There is not a cash limit, but one can project what the spending is going to be. The steering group is constrained to stick within currently predicted spending. I think that there may well be reductions, because if we do all the things that we have been talking about, we can do a better job for both disabled people and the taxpayers whose taxes are paying for the system.

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

I welcome the Minister’s interim report and the commitment to co-production with deaf and disabled people’s organisations. The report rightly recognises that while PIP is a highly valued benefit, too many people experience claiming it as stressful, dehumanising and simply not fit for purpose. Frontline organisations such as the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK have welcomed that honest diagnosis, but they warn that disabled people remain anxious about where the review is heading. Does the Minister agree that the real test of success will be the final recommendations being recognised as genuinely co-produced and commanding the confidence of those who rely on PIP? The Minister has mentioned that a good system will bring about savings, but can he assure the House that this will be driven by improving support, not by achieving savings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to organisations like those that my hon. Friend mentioned—the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK—for their support for the interim report. I assure my hon. Friend that the final report will be properly co-produced. It will be led by the steering group that I have referred to, and there is going to be a lot of engagement after the summer around our initial thinking on conclusions, which we will draw up over the summer. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that people will be able to be confident in the conclusions we eventually reach.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I apologise for crossing between you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) earlier.

I thank the Minister for Social Security for his statement, for the interim update, which, as he said, is a rare thing as part of a process, and for his approach to dealing with this complex subject with kindness and compassion and treating disabled people with dignity. They really appreciate that. Nearly 300 of my constituents contacted me about the proposed changes to disability support during this consultation period. They consistently described a system that is too often unfair, distressing and mistrustful of disabled people. Can the Minister explain how today’s proposals will restore confidence among claimants that PIP exists to support disabled people, rather than to challenge their entitlement at every turn, and that those who need it will receive it?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review. He mentions being contacted by 300 of his constituents; as I mentioned, our call for evidence received 38,000 responses, which I was very pleased about. We are doing further work, too. At the moment, Workshops in a Box are being carried out around the country to ensure that we also hear from people who may not be up for or willing to submit a formal reply to a call for evidence. The objective that the hon. Gentleman sets out is absolutely right: I do not think it is necessary for the application process for this benefit to have the hostile and adversarial characteristics of the current one, and we are determined to put that right.

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

I regret the stigmatising language that we have heard even today—this division between disabled people and taxpayers, as though disabled people do not pay taxes, and a division between those who work and those claiming PIP, when we all know that PIP is used to get people into work and support them overall. It seems that those now being targeted for invidious smearing are young people who are facing mental health issues. I urge my right hon. Friend to publish detailed analysis of that issue as soon as possible to give us a greater understanding of it, so that we can perhaps avoid the stigmatisation of these young people.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am certainly keen to avoid stigmatising anybody. If my right hon. Friend looks at the interim report, he will see that there is quite a lot of evidence specifically on that point. It is very important that that evidence is properly sifted and assessed in the course of our work, and we will do that. We want to remove barriers, because too often young people in particular have started to claim benefits and then the system has abandoned them, which is neither in their interests nor consistent with their aspirations. It is not in the interests of the Government or society, either. We need to support young people to be able to participate in work and in other things by removing the barriers that have stopped them doing that in the past, and that is what we are determined to do.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents, including those already suffering the devastating consequences of the cuts to the health component of universal credit, are following the work of the Timms review closely and with trepidation. Like me, they know that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, but is intended as a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability, from food to fuel and transport. Will the Minister ensure that any proposals brought forward to the House are not driven by the desire for short-term cuts that motivated the last two proposals, and that the focus is instead on how people actually experience disability?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can give my hon. Friend exactly the assurance that she seeks: this will be a properly and carefully considered piece of work. She is absolutely right that PIP can be claimed by people who are in work or out of work. When we were having the debates last summer, a lot of people made the point that PIP is what enables them to go to work; without it, they would not be able to get to work. The question that arises in the terms of reference is: what can we do to ensure that in future PIP does a better job of removing the barriers that have stopped people working in the past? We want to bring that about.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

The interim report rightly recognises what disabled people have long been saying, which is that PIP is a broken system. What assurances can the Minister give that the recommendations of the final report will be grounded in disabled people’s right to social security, right to independent living and right to participate in society? Will disabled people and their organisations properly shape the next phase of the reforms, rather than merely being consulted on them?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, they will. The co-production approach that we have taken so far will be the approach that we take throughout the review. Over the summer, we will be formulating our initial thoughts about conclusions and recommendations and then, in September or October, we will be discussing them with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations and we will hold events in different parts of the country to ensure that it is disabled people who are shaping the final conclusions that we bring forward.

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

I declare that one of my children is in receipt of the disability living allowance. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the interim report. Earlier, we heard—without irony—a list of criticisms from the Opposition about the personal independence payment that they handed over to this Government. Clearly, part of the problem is also the SEND policies and the health service that they handed over to this Government. As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that we need cross-departmental buy-in as part of this process, as part of the SEND review, as part of health reform in the 10-year plan and as part of a review of PIP. Will he commit today to continuing to look at that issue, particularly for young people, and to looking again at whether to raise the age of transfer from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

On his final point, as my hon. Friend knows, that proposal was consulted on in the Green Paper last year, and we are looking at that. I think he makes a very good point. I can assure him that we are going to be working across Government on exactly the concerns that he raises.

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

I welcome the interim report and agree that PIP is no longer fit for purpose. However, meaningful reform will succeed only if the DWP adopts the culture of mutual respect that we are seeing through this co-produced process. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that the review will also examine the wider culture in the DWP, which far too often harms the very people it is meant to support?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The focus of the review is very tightly on PIP itself. However, as I touched on earlier, I do think that the Department will want to, and will, learn lessons from the success of this approach to date, which I hope will be fully borne out in the final report that we submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn. I think that will be a mechanism for changing the culture in the Department and the way that it and, I hope, the wider Government work.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, his experience and his compassion, and thank the steering group for their work. Walking by on the other side, as others did, is not an option here. We have to get a grip of this broken system, driven by a real focus on ensuring that those with chronic conditions and disabled people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country get the dignity, respect and support that they deserve. As the Minister knows, because I have told him many times, many of my constituents have very loud views on and real experience of this broken system, so will he come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to meet those constituents and hear their views? He will get a very warm Staffordshire welcome if he does so.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. If he would like to drop me a line, I will see how my diary is looking in the next couple of months.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for all the hard work that has gone into getting us to where we are now. The interim report finds very low levels of trust in the legacy scheme that we inherited from the Conservatives. How will the Minister go about rebuilding that trust not only with disabled people and people with long-term conditions, but with the general public, to ensure that there is the understanding and respect that we all think should be part of the system?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The key first step is to complete this review in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, and we will be doing that. Then I think it is a question of people seeing what the new system will be and observing in due course how it works. I hope that in that way we can rebuild trust and confidence in the system on the part of both disabled people and taxpayers—recognising the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that there is a big overlap between those two categories.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership on this issue. One of the leading causes of disability, particularly for working-age adults, is stroke. It is a subject I know all too well; my dad had a life-altering stroke at 55, and 10 years later, just days after his 65th birthday, it was a stroke that killed him. During those 10 years, PIP was an absolute lifeline for him. We learned very quickly as a family the importance of rehabilitation, which is why I was so concerned recently when I met representatives of the Stroke Association, who said that just 7% of stroke survivors are receiving the rehabilitation recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in rehabilitation will not only improve people’s mobility and independence but reduce their reliance on PIP?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I agree that rehabilitation is very important. Perhaps I should refer my hon. Friend’s point to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I know will be very interested in it as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that when the health service is doing the job that we all want it to do, there will be less of a need to call on PIP, because people’s needs will be dealt with by the health service. I will certainly pass on the important point that he has raised.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the father of a child in receipt of DLA. “Not fit for purpose”, “degrading”, “dehumanising”, “stressful”—the findings of this report reflect what I hear from my constituents. As the Minister moves to the next phase—co-production—will he look at moving to a more personalised, individualised approach? A lot of the review’s findings relate to the application process and this sort of arbitrary gatekeeping around entitlement to money, when all people are asking for is support to live independent, dignified and productive lives.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. Yes, I hope that we will be able to come up with a proposal that will entail greater personalisation. At the moment, for example, the number of different rates of benefit paid out is not very many—it is quite a lumpy system. I think there is a question to be asked about whether something more personalised could do a better job. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Carer’s Allowance Reform: Call for Evidence

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government have today launched a Call for Evidence on the modernisation and reform of carer’s allowance. This is available on www.gov.uk and accessible format versions will be available on request.

Modernising for the future

Carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976 and has not kept pace with changes in how people balance work and caring responsibilities. Many carers want the flexibility to combine some paid work with their caring responsibilities.

We have taken steps to improve the system, including increasing the carer’s allowance earnings limit to align with 16 hours at the national living wage, improving guidance for staff and customers, and strengthening processes to identify and prevent overpayments earlier.

We recognise, though, that there is more to do, and are therefore considering how the benefit can be modernised for the future, including through reforms such as an earnings taper and automating the calculation of earnings where possible using data collected by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Building the evidence base

This call for evidence is an important next step in that process. We are seeking views and evidence to better understand how carer’s allowance can:

support carers to balance paid work and caring responsibilities;

ensure the system is clear and easy to understand;

maintain fairness and value for money for taxpayers.

Evidence gathered through this exercise will inform future policy development. We are particularly interested in views on the current earnings rules, including on the earnings limit and whether a more predictable approach to how earnings are averaged would better support carers.

We will consider the wider fiscal impacts of reforms and the need to ensure that support is targeted effectively.

We want to hear from carers, representative organisations and others with relevant experience to shape our understanding and inform next steps.

[HCWS190]

Employment and Training

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 1 June, be approved.

In my view, the provisions in this statutory instrument are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The statutory purpose of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is to make better provision for training throughout the engineering construction industry in England, Scotland and Wales. Engineering construction is critical to the Government’s wider ambitions for economic growth, clean energy and energy security. The industry provides the skilled workforce to build, maintain and operate major energy, manufacturing and industrial infrastructure across the country. The continued value of the ECITB and the Construction Industry Training Board was confirmed by a 2023 independent review, which found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry-wide investment in training, and is needed to address persistent structural workforce challenges within the industries covered by the industry training boards.

This order gives effect to the ECITB’s levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the board’s primary source of funding, and the order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on employers that are in scope. It continues to receive strong support from employers: more than 85% of levy-paying employers supported the levy proposals, representing nearly 98% of total levy value—well above the statutory threshold of more than 50% support required from industry.

A 12-week Government consultation has just closed on a proposal to bring the two ITBs together into a single, unified body to support the combined skills needs of the engineering construction and construction sectors. The Government are now carefully considering the views expressed before making decisions on reforms that may be needed to ensure that the system delivers the support that employers need. I cannot prejudge the outcome but, in order to maintain the ECITB for support for employers, we need this levy order. If the Government chose to proceed with the proposed reform, the earliest that a single body could be in place would be the spring of 2028. If reform required a new ITB levy order, it would come to the House through the usual parliamentary process.

I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review of this levy order. The order retains levy assessment rates from the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2023 and retains the exemption threshold to protect small businesses and microbusinesses that are still eligible for ECITB grants and support.

An estimated £137.9 million will be raised in levy between 2026 and 2028. It will be invested in meeting the skills needs of the engineering construction industry. It will fund programmes to widen participation, raise skill levels, increase opportunity and maintain occupational standards for the industry. It includes targeted grant support for employers to develop the skills pipeline in engineering construction. Since 2023, more than 5,000 apprenticeship starts have been supported through ECITB employer funding, including electrical, mechanical and nuclear-specific apprenticeships. That support includes direct grants for employers, travel and accommodation costs, and costs of additional qualifications that are required.

The funding raised by the ECITB levy directly underpins broader economic priorities. More than 90,000 people are employed in the leviable workforce, contributing an estimated £33 billion in gross value added, which rises to £100 billion when we include the wider sectors serviced by the engineering construction industry. However, the industry faces big, long-standing challenges in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce, which makes voluntary investment in training harder to secure. Only a statutory levy can guarantee that the skills that industry urgently needs will be provided at the scale required. If this order is not approved, the ECITB will be unable to collect the levy in 2026. That would hit apprenticeships and other vital industry qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capabilities of one of our most economically significant sectors.

It is estimated that the UK needs an additional 40,000 engineering construction workers, and this order will play an important part in supporting major infrastructure projects nationwide. In addition to industry support, the proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as we do, that the ability of the ECITB to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring that employers across all three nations can access the engineering construction skills that they need. I commend the order to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate for the thoughtful scrutiny they have given to this instrument, and I am grateful for the support expressed by the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Torbay (Steve Darling) and my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner).

What I think the debate has effectively underlined is just how important the work of the ECITB is and the scale of the challenge that faces one of our most economically vital industries, which has a core workforce of 90,000 people and is responsible for £33 billion in annual output. The importance of that industry has been well reflected in the contributions to this debate. It is clear that the engineering and construction industry cannot meet its skills demands in the coming decade without a stable, collective system of investment in training. The evidence is consistent that market forces on their own will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs.

The ECITB levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefit for the focused skills strategy for this industry. It ensures that employers can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. It also opens up opportunities. It helps apprentices and other new entrants to complete high-quality training, and it helps existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers.

The hon. Member for South West Devon asked what the Government are doing to support the industry more widely with skills. Substantial Government investment is being deployed to that effect as part of wider reforms to help employers respond to current and future workforce needs. This includes an additional £1 billion of investment to help deliver some 50,000 more apprenticeship opportunities over the next few years, alongside increased flexibility through the new growth and skills levy and sector-specific skills packages in engineering and construction worth over £800 million.

The hon. Lady will know of the targeted incentives for employers, including payments of up to £2,000 for taking on foundation apprentices, which will help more young people to enter skilled careers. The continued investment that we are making in skills bootcamps and increasingly devolved approaches through mayoral strategic authorities are enabling local areas to respond more effectively to local employer demand and skills shortages. Together with support from the ECITB, the measures certainly will strengthen the pipeline of skills, and I agree with the hon. Lady about how important that is.

The hon. Lady cited the figure from 2024 that £28 million was invested by the ECITB in training grants and new entrant programmes. That went up to £32.6 million last year. We are expecting continuing increases, and we recognise the importance of being able to fulfil the growing demand that we are seeing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) quite rightly reflected how important these measures are for Portsmouth, and she asked for engagement with the all-party parliamentary group. I will pass on that request to the Minister for Transformation, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who I am sure will be very pleased to do that.

To the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), I am afraid that I am not in a position to shed any light on the timing of the decision following the recent consultation. I will, though, pass on his suggestion that trade union representation should be considered when the reorganisation is being reflected on.

The shadow Minister asked me a question about the proportion of new entrants. I think she was asking about those who are still in the industry 12 months on. That is not a figure that I have to hand but I will, if I may, drop her a line, if I can get the information to answer her question.

The debate has reminded us just how important supporting the needs of small businesses is, ensuring maximum impact and value for money from employers’ levy contributions, and I think that the order gives reassurance on all those points. It maintains support for the engineering construction industry by minimising burdens on employers, holding steady levy rates and protecting smaller firms by maintaining exemption thresholds. Regardless of any future decisions needed to future-proof its support, the industry cannot afford a gap in funding now, and approving this order provides continuity, stability and confidence for engineering construction employers across England, Scotland and Wales. I am grateful for the support this measure has received in the debate, and for all those reasons I urge the House to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Being in work is the best way to avoid poverty. The benefit cap gives a modest but significant incentive to start work and then to progress in work. Some people cannot work, so the cap does not apply to people out of work on disability or caring benefits, but for others it remains in place.

[Paula Barker]

The abolition of the two-child limit by this Government was a key step in cutting child poverty, but some of the poorest families still see their benefit capped, and there are shockingly high levels of child poverty in parts of my constituency, with 70% of children in Arundel ward and 61% of those in Princes Park ward growing up in poverty. The cap hits families with high needs: two thirds are single-parent families, more than half of whom had a child under five and over a quarter had a child under two. They are often forced to turn to food banks to survive as a result. The Trussell Trust provided 1,300 food parcels to children in Liverpool Wavertree last year. Will the Government build on the abolition of the two-child limit and review the benefit cap to ensure that families with very young children are protected from poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We will certainly keep the policy under review, but at the moment too many people are in poverty through being out of work, and the cap does help by increasing the incentive to work. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the scrapping of the two-child limit—2 million children will gain overall from that. There are 50,000 capped households who will not see a gain, but a large number will. One other point I should make is that childcare support within universal credit is not affected by the cap, so that is of further help.

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

The House of Commons Library, quoting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, reports that child poverty rates in Scotland are much lower than in England, at 23% compared with 31%, due at least in part to the Scottish child payment. In the light of this Government’s mission to tackle the scourge of child poverty, can the Minister describe what measures the Government are planning, in addition to the abolition of the two-child cap—for example, scrapping the infamous bedroom tax?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member is right that the scrapping of the two-child limit is the key measure and will lead to 450,000 children moving out of poverty. Other measures in our child poverty strategy that we published last year will increase that number by another 100,000. That is going to be very welcome progress in Scotland as well as in the rest of the UK, and we will be keeping policies under review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

Some 100,000 households get over £50,000 in benefits, and 16,000 households get over £60,000 in benefits. That gives them the same income as the top 10% of earners in this country. British people are sick and tired of footing the bill for “Benefits Street” and seeing welfare claimants living lives of luxury at their expense. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has called for more collaborative politics, so will the Minister adopt our plan to toughen up the benefits cap and save £1 billion off the benefits bill?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

If there is a plan, I would be very interested to see it. We certainly have not seen any details of it. The hon. Member’s comments are a further example of her expressing dissatisfaction with the system left behind by her Government after 14 years. We are reforming the system and making sure it is doing the job we need it to do, and we will carry on with that programme of reform.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Question 4, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

10. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of ensuring that all care leavers are entitled to the same standard universal credit allowance.

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

We have been reminded already this afternoon of the experiences of Fatima Whitbread. Work is under way across Government to give care leavers access to the skills and wider support for sustained employment and career progression. Lower universal credit rates for younger claimants strengthen work incentives and encourage increased earnings over time.

[John Whitby]

This Government are rightly committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity, but care leavers still face disproportionate challenges as they move into independent adulthood. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the universal credit age-related rates for care leavers, with a view to ensuring that all 18 to 24-year-old care leavers receive the same rate of UC as those aged 25 and over?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is very important that we do not weaken the incentives for care leavers to start work and to progress once they are in work. At the moment, 40% of young care leavers are not in employment, education or training. That is a horrific statistic, so our response is to provide tailored Jobcentre Plus support. We also have the new youth jobs grant of £3,000, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to, which will be available from tomorrow. Care leavers under the age of 25 are eligible for the one-bedroom local housing allowance rate, rather than the shared accommodation rate, so there is a financial benefit there, but our focus is rightly on support into work.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers, as always. In Northern Ireland, care leavers are really untold heroes in the work that they do. Many of us, in all our communities, understand the delivery of care that is provided. In relation to young people, has the Minister had an opportunity to talk to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can move forward with the speed that he seems to indicate? I understand that there are 19,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in Northern Ireland without any employment, so there may be an opportunity here to do better.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be delighted to have that conversation. I speak regularly to the Minister in Northern Ireland about matters in my portfolio, and I would be happy to cover this matter in our next conversation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of a finding from the Liz Sayce review of carer’s allowance overpayments in respect of the underuse of waivers, given that the households concerned are often the most vulnerable in society. Has a review of the use of waivers been undertaken, and what changes have been made for frontline staff?

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

As the hon. Member knows, we are working through the cases of those who were required to repay an overpayment over recent years. I am receiving an update every week on the number of cases that have been gone through and the number of people who have had an overpayment reduced or cancelled, and I would be happy to give the hon. Member further information about the progress of that work.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T7.   Support for young people wanting access to the world of work has never been more crucial, but the success of youth hubs will depend on their ability to connect with, be useful to and understand the needs of employers. What steps will the youth hubs take to ensure that they are communicating with businesses and understanding their needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T4. One in 50 Londoners, including one in 21 children, are homeless and living in temporary accommodation. London boroughs are spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation. Although housing costs have skyrocketed in the past 15 years, the temporary accommodation subsidy gap has remained frozen since 2011. Some councils are now struggling to fund other important areas, such as social care. Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing the temporary accommodation subsidy gap, to ensure that councils are fairly reimbursed?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can assure the hon. Member that my Department is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to look at what we need to do between us to address the problem of homelessness. I note the point she raises, which is one of the points for discussion.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T9. The number of young people not in employment, education or training should concern us all, so I was delighted to see the announcement earlier this month of a new youth hub for Adur. Can the Secretary of State set out how it will set young people up for success in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

T6. The universal credit team have admitted that they made the wrong decision on whether my constituent had to pay the bedroom tax for a room to care for his son, but they have only backdated payments to 25 May 2025, rather than 1 July 2024. Can the Minister ensure that my constituent gets a full refund, and set out how we are going to stop future errors on universal credit decisions?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There is a limit on how far back applications can be backdated, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line with the details, I will make sure that we have a good look at the case he raises.

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

The Pensions Minister knows that there is no retirement on a dead planet, so will he commit to writing to the 50 largest UK pension funds to ask them to set out their timetable for divesting from fossil fuels?

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The increased PIP costs are expected to add an extra £5 billion to the welfare budget this year. As the TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted, the number of households earning over £100,000 and getting PIP has doubled to 200,000 claimants. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential merits of means-testing PIP to ensure targeted support?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Together with disabled people, we are co-producing a review of PIP to ensure that it is fair and fit for the future. The review’s terms of reference reflect the view of successive Governments that PIP should be a non-means-tested cash benefit for people both in and out of work, because anybody can incur additional costs as a result of long-term ill health or disability.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Sadly, Dudley borough was named in Alan Milburn’s “Young people and work” report as the worst performing borough in the country for tracking 16 and 17-year-olds—for over a thousand 16 and 17-year-olds, it was unknown whether they were working, in school or in college, or what they were doing at all. Can the Secretary of State outline what the Department is doing to ensure that we do not lose sight of these young people, as we have done in Dudley, so that we can give them the opportunities they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

One of my constituents is a former care leaver who is facing immense health conditions and he can no longer work. Given the lack of family and social support that many care leavers experience, they are uniquely vulnerable to financial insecurity. Can the Minister confirm that the experiences of care leavers are being considered as part of the Timms review?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

If the care leavers are PIP recipients —I think that is probably the case in the example my hon. Friend has given—we are certainly considering that point. If this issue is one that she thinks we need to reflect on in the review, I would be keen to hear about such experiences.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Bereavement benefits have not been uprated for 10 years, and they simply do not recognise the lifelong impact of early bereavement on children and surviving parents. Will the Minister look again at uprating bereavement support benefits in line with inflation?

Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457)

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for permitting us to take our jackets off. I thank hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

As we have heard—my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley made the point absolutely correctly—this statutory instrument amends regulations to enable the best use of the assessment resources that we have available. It will help us to repair the broken system that we inherited, which needs to be repaired, and provides a much-needed safeguard against potential future challenges, in order to protect payments to vulnerable people.

As mentioned by my hon. Friend, under the contracts with assessment providers that were negotiated by the last Government, we can call on only a finite volume of assessment capacity. We could, as the last Government did, use a large chunk of that capacity for frequent reassessments of PIP claimants whose circumstances most likely have not changed at all, or we can use that resource in a more productive way. That is what we have chosen to do.

We want to do two new things. First, we want to recommence, properly, reassessments for the work capability assessment, which provides a gateway to the health premium in universal credit. The situation we inherited is that work capability assessments are carried out when somebody makes a new application, and after a period that person is due a reassessment. The number of reassessments that it has been possible to carry out has been lamentably low. The hon. Member for South West Devon commended PIP reassessments—if only the Conservatives had carried out the work capability reassessments. We want to switch some of the assessment capacity that was being used ineffectively by the last Government, so that it will be used effectively in future.

The second thing we want to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred to, is to increase substantially the proportion of assessments that are carried out face to face. Almost all of them used to be face to face, then came the pandemic, and for reasons that we all understand, they switched to being phone-based or occasionally video-based assessments instead. But once the needs of the pandemic had passed, face-to-face assessments were never properly switched back on. Telephony was retained as the main channel, with just a small number of face-to-face assessments restarting in 2021. In our view, that is not good enough.

[John Milne]

As the Minister knows, I sit on the Work and Pensions Committee. About a year ago, we heard evidence that in fact there was little statistical difference between the approval rates for face-to-face interviews and for remote interviews. The figures may have been updated since, but that is the evidence we heard then. I am in favour of face-to-face interviews—they seem intuitively better—but there may not be quite the difference that everyone might reasonably expect; that is what the figures show.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There certainly has been data along those lines; I think it was data along those lines that made the previous Government think that they need not start face-to-face assessments again. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: to build confidence in the system, not least on the part of the people being assessed—I was speaking to somebody yesterday who said, “I wish that I’d had a face-to-face assessment”—and to make sure that the correct decisions are being made, we do need face-to-face assessments.

By the time of the general election, only about 7% of work capability assessments and PIP assessments were being carried out face to face. We want to do a great deal better than that. It was not just that the resources for face-to-face assessments were not provided in the assessment contracts, although that was certainly part of the issue; the other factor was that the previous Government walked away from large amounts of the assessment estate so there were no longer enough places where face-to-face assessments could be carried out. That is a pretty fundamental problem. The hon. Member for South West Devon spoke about la-la land, but frankly, that is where the Government who she supported left us.

We are therefore mounting a major rebuilding task to regain the capacity for face-to-face assessments that the last Government threw away, because our view is that these assessments should be done properly. We have started to rebuild the capacity that the previous Government threw away. We have increased the proportion of work capability assessments and PIP assessments carried out face to face, and we are on our way to achieving our target that at least 30% of both will be face to face. To achieve that, we need additional assessment resource; this measure is a key step in enabling us to obtain that.

[Oliver Ryan]

As the Minister is reading out his list of achievements, may I add to it? Does he think it is a good thing that we have put nearly £1 billion into support for the sick and disabled? That will partly come from savings from this and other measures, which we hope will save £1.9 billion by the end of the Parliament. As he says, the act of government is about making these difficult decisions and trade-offs in order to provide people with more support in the long run.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not yet got to that bit in my list, but I am coming to it—I am looking forward to that part of my speech.

The Conservative party is telling us that it would maintain its failed approach, with hardly any assessments being carried out face to face. That does at least have the benefit of consistency, I suppose, but we do not think it is good enough, and we will make the changes necessary to do far better. As my hon. Friend correctly highlighted, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, this change that we have announced will reduce benefits spending by almost £2 billion—£1.9 billion—over five years.

We inherited an assessment system that was not equipped to do the job. The previous Government agreed contractual limits that meant at most 20% of assessments would be face to face. That was written into the contracts they signed, but there was not nearly enough capacity even to meet that level. We are having to fix a broken system, and we are making good progress, with the measure we are debating being an important step.

The purpose of this straightforward change is to provide the Secretary of State the power to extend personal independence payment awards in a limited set of circumstances, where it is deemed necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration of benefits. Before the amendment, a decision to extend an award of PIP required either a new claim for PIP, evidence of an error or mistake in the first decision, evidence that the claimant’s circumstances had changed, or the completion of a report by a healthcare professional appointed by the Secretary of State. In many cases, that would involve a claimant undergoing an assessment. Where such a decision could not be taken before an award expired, claimants would cease to be entitled to PIP until a further decision was completed. They would remain so until a further decision on entitlement could be made.

The amendment grants a specific discretion, making it possible to extend only the length of an award, and only where doing so is necessary for the administration of the benefit. As well as allowing the more efficient use of assessment resources, the discretion protects vulnerable claimants who would risk losing entitlement to PIP if, as in the pandemic, circumstances threatened to limit the state’s capacity to administer it. We are ensuring that the Department can lawfully maintain benefits payments to the most vulnerable people.

The new power will be used initially to increase the length of existing awards in line with the policy on award lengths for new awards, for which the Secretary of State already has the power. Existing claimants’ awards will be extended so that most first-time awards for those over 25 will be reviewed after three years, and most subsequent awards will be reviewed after five. Only awards deemed to be appropriate for those durations will be extended. The Committee may well be interested to know that the average annual increase in the PIP caseload has slowed under this Government: it fell from an increase of about 13% a year in 2019-20 to 2024-25, to a forecast average of about 7% a year over the subsequent five years.

The hon. Member for Horsham made a point about the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think he said that the committee had not looked at this; that is not correct—the committee has looked at it. It looks at all the regulatory changes that we propose, and it does a very good job. It plays an important role, and we welcome its scrutiny. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee asked questions, and we were happy to set out the purpose of the regulations and the reasons for them. The committee accepted the information that we provided, and it chose to take the regulations on formal reference. I think the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about the committee’s view of this change.

I am grateful for the points that have been made and the opportunity for scrutiny that the debate has provided. The changes we are making enable the Department to make more efficient use of limited assessment capacity, to reduce assessments where they are not needed in order to focus on where they are needed, and to allow PIP awards to be extended in an emergency or crisis, as emerged during the pandemic, thereby protecting some vulnerable people from unnecessary hardship.

This is a measured amendment to ensure the effective administration of the benefits system. I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon will not press the motion to a Division, but I fear she probably will—her party issued a press release before this Committee to say that Conservative Members would vote to annul the amendment, possibly before they realised what exactly was going on. If that is the case, I urge the Committee not to vote against the amendment.

[Rebecca Smith]

I assure the Minister that we did know what was going to happen. We will not change our minds on the position that has already been set out.

We believe that this instrument moves us in the wrong direction. I appreciate the points that were made by the Minister and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Horsham, who highlighted that there was apparently little difference between in-person and online reviews. That highlights that the issues that we have raised have not really been addressed—the Minister certainly has not.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Will she clarify her party’s position? Does the Conservative party think that more than 7% of assessments ought to be carried out face to face, or is it not really bothered about whether they are carried out face to face or over the phone?

[Rebecca Smith]

Clearly, face to face is good, where possible. The 7% figure that you commented on was from the pandemic and from when you picked up. We know that we had a huge backlog to deal with—

Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to her for her consistent work on this issue in supporting her constituent, Caroline Hudson, whose brother-in-law, George Elliott, tragically died of silicosis, as we have heard.

I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) in his place, as he invariably is for debates on health and safety matters, and to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too.

I am the Minister responsible for health and safety in the workplace and for the Health and Safety Executive, or HSE. There has rightly been a lot of interest and correspondence lately about the increased dangers of silicosis resulting from engineered stone, the concerns that have been raised in this debate. Workers—often quite young people, as we have heard—who have worked with engineered stone have been made seriously ill or even, on occasion, lost their lives. I want to extend my deepest sympathy to all individuals and families affected.

We have been rightly informed that respirable crystalline silica—RCS—is a fine dust. It cannot normally be seen by the naked eye when airborne, but it does generally arise in visibly dusty processes. It is breathed in through the nose and mouth, can stay in the lungs for years and can cause irreversible lung damage before any symptoms become apparent. The illness it causes can continue to worsen after exposure stops. Breathing in RCS can lead to silicosis and the very serious harms we have heard about. It can also lead to other problems, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said.

Every worker should be able to return home safe from work without fear of succumbing to a preventable deadly lung disease. Silica dust risks have long been recognised but we now know that engineered stone can contain very high concentrations of crystalline silica, as we have been reminded. What is particularly alarming in the past couple of years is the emergence of accelerated silicosis, which is linked to the processing of engineered stone containing high levels of silica at a much higher throughput without effective exposure controls being in place.

As one might expect, engineered stone can be processed much more quickly than natural stone and that means that the volume of silica dust a worker can be exposed to is much greater. As a result, we have seen across the world rapid onset of illness after quite short exposure periods, with severe and irreversible lung damage occurring. As we have rightly been told in this debate, all of that is preventable where exposure to silica dust is controlled. We are determined that it should be prevented. It is well known, as we have been reminded, that Australia introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, and California is now considering a similar approach.

It is worth noting, though, that the danger of silicosis arises from natural stone, not just engineered stone. Having introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, Australia then introduced restrictions on the use of natural stone in September of that year. We are not currently proposing a ban in the UK, because we do not think that is the right approach. HSE is working closely here with the Worktop Fabricators Federation. That has developed, in conjunction with the British Occupational Health Society, for which I have a high regarded, a quality mark for worktops, to reassure consumers that they are buying a worktop that has been produced safely, not putting workers at risk. It has a logo and the wording

“strict silica safety standards applied”.

Being able to display that quality mark is dependent on the fabricator demonstrating to a registered occupational hygienist compliance with a 16-point list, including, for example, point number 3:

“The use of lower silica products (below 30%) wherever possible.”

Accredited products can now be bought from some retailers listed on the Worktop Fabricators Federation website.

As I said, we are going to keep this closely under review, though we are not currently proposing a ban on engineered stone in the UK. It would not solve the problem in workplaces that did not have adequate safeguards, because as I have said, problems can arise with natural stone. And the evidence is clear that workers can be protected from the dangers of engineered stone if the right control measures are in place. Those controls need to be in place now to make sure that exposure to harmful dust does not occur.

One difference with Australia is the concern there about the safety of people installing the worktops. That has not been raised with me as yet. The risk that we have identified here is to people in workshops cutting the materials ahead of installation. There is a serious problem there, but of course it is possible that the problem could arise in installation as well, and we will keep this closely under review.

A ban could lead to unintended consequences with alternative, less well-known materials introducing new risks. Last week, the Health and Safety Executive met Safe Work Australia—the body responsible—to discuss the impact of the ban there. It did an initial review and it identified potential concerns that the ban had led to complacency about the safety of other products that are not prohibited, suggesting that they were assumed to be safe to use without control measures when actually they are not. Control measures are needed for those products as well. But we are going to keep in touch with Safe Work Australia and keep the experience of the ban in Australia under review.

A lot of workers in Britain work with these materials every day. Workers and their employers need to understand that controls to prevent exposure are essential, not optional. For many decades, we have had in place a robust regulatory framework—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, known as COSHH. That includes the need for control measures, substitution with less harmful materials, and health surveillance. There is also a workplace exposure limit of 0.1 mg per cubic metre for working with silica. That ceiling must not be exceeded, but those with duties are required to minimise exposure below that level. The HSE has published a range of practical guidance—some of it very recent—for those where risks are highest. That is focused on the need to control the dust at source. But the law and guidance are effective only when followed, and it is here that the HSE is now focusing its efforts.

Over the last two years, the HSE has been building the evidence base, working with suppliers and developing an effective response. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Eastleigh welcome that activity recently.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Not just at the moment. I may be able to later.

Last month, the HSE launched a campaign specifically on this area of risk, with dedicated pages and resources on the HSE’s Work Right website. Media activity supported the launch; there was coverage in national publications and trade media, as well as the HSE appearing at the Natural Stone Show at the Excel centre in London.

Also last month, the HSE published new COSHH guidance for those working with engineered stone. Businesses now have unambiguous instructions on what the law requires for compliance to be achieved. The guidance sets out what is expected to protect workers: water suppression of dust and mist control, appropriate respiratory protective equipment and effective ventilation. Those are not optional extras; they are what is required to comply with the law. Dry cutting of engineered stone is not acceptable. It must not happen anywhere. When dry cutting happens, workers will be inhaling significant quantities of silica dust. Where it remains on their clothing, they are also potentially spreading that silica dust to others.

The HSE has also strengthened its guidance on health surveillance to make it clear that where there is a risk of exposure, employers must ensure that workers’ health is regularly monitored. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh correctly raised.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. The dangers are significant for those who visit factories and quarry sites. The Minister outlined that there is a strict statutory need for protective clothing and respiratory mouth covers. Is that the true for people who visit these sites, so they are not affected by this as well?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Employers need to take care that visitors to their premises are protected. What is being done includes making sure that workers at risk are having respiratory health checks, lung function testing and X-rays at intervals decided by an occupational health professional, and that employers have clear processes for identifying and reporting symptoms. In this debate, the importance of carrying out reporting has rightly been identified. The HSE is currently consulting on expanding the requirements in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations to include silicosis once again. The consultation on that is under way, and it will conclude at the end of the month. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was quite right to raise that issue.

For those who choose not to comply with the law, we need effective enforcement. Starting in April and throughout the summer, HSE will be carrying out more than 1,000 inspections across the industry. It will inspect every place that we know of where this stone is being cut— if anyone knows of a place that we may not be aware of, please let me know; I want to make sure that HSE can go and look at it. HSE has carried out 13 inspections since they started at the end of April. Those were visits to places that concern was expressed to us about. Out of the 13 inspections so far, two businesses had ceased trading, but six of the remaining 11 were made to stop processing immediately. Prohibition notices were served for dry processing, unguarded machinery or both. Eight businesses received improvement notices for failing to provide the correct respiratory equipment, while eight received them for failing to provide health surveillance for employees. Just one of the 13 was operating in an exemplary way.

Through the programme, HSE will inspect every site it can identify in the country that works with engineered stone. HSE’s inspectors are being briefed on the programme this week. The resources are available to do the job properly, and inspections are under way across the country. Wherever standards are not met, enforcement action will be taken, including a prohibition notice if necessary. As a result of the inspections, HSE may give a duty holder advice or, where there are more significant concerns, issue improvement or prohibition notices that require a duty holder to make improvements or stop dangerous activities altogether. The inspections are now under way, and we are determined to drive out the poor practice behind the problems we have heard about in this debate.

We remain committed to ensuring that every worker in every sector is properly protected from this entirely avoidable harm. I welcome the contributions of Members who spoke today. I commend the campaign of The i Paper on this issue and all those who are working to highlight this important and alarming development. I will continue to monitor the evidence available in this country and keep an eye on what is going on elsewhere in the world. I will be very happy to consider further measures if it becomes clear that they are needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Historical Personal Independence Payment Claims

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Written Statements

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

On 28 May 2026, DWP published statistics about two exercises which reviewed historical personal independence payment claims for people affected by the MM Supreme Court judgment or the LB upper tribunal decision.

MM judgment

The MM judgment was handed down in July 2019 and related to daily living activity 9 of the PIP assessment. It found that prompting should be considered social support when it is provided by a person trained or otherwise experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. It also found that DWP should take account of social support given before and after a social situation, not just at the time of the interaction itself, depending on the needs of the claimant. DWP updated the guidance for new claims from 17 September 2020 to reflect the judgment.

On 20 September 2021, DWP launched an exercise to review historical claims from 6 April 2016 to 16 September 2020 that may have been affected by the MM judgment. DWP looked at cases where people with a psychiatric condition had previously been assessed as needing prompting and cases not previously awarded points for daily living activity 9 because of the timing of any support. A progress update on this exercise was previously published at: PIP administrative exercise for MM: progress report to 31 August 2023 - GOV.UK.

This exercise concluded on 17 November. The release sets out management information related to the exercise. DWP reviewed 350,000 cases and made 48,000 payments in arrears, totalling £270 million.

LB upper tribunal decision

The LB upper tribunal decision was handed down in November 2016 and related to daily living activity 3 of the PIP assessment. It changed how managing therapy or monitoring a health condition should be interpreted. The upper tribunal found that a combination of time spent supervising, prompting and assisting with medication and monitoring a health condition must be considered as therapy. The tribunal also made comments on when paying attention to the timing and nature of food and drink constitutes diet as therapy.

DWP updated guidance for new claims from 17 June 2019 to reflect the decision.

On 15 October 2019, the Department launched an exercise to review historical claims made between 28 November 2016 and 16 June 2019 that may have been affected by the LB decision. DWP looked at cases of people with diabetes and another condition, such as a learning disability or severe visual impairment.

The exercise concluded on 31 January 2024. The release sets out management information related to the exercise. DWP reviewed 44,000 cases and made fewer than 100 payments in arrears, totalling £188,000.

All reviews have been carried out by a case manager within the Department and no one should have seen their PIP reduced because of these exercises.

Although DWP has completed both exercises, claimants can still ask the Department to conduct a review of their case if they think they are affected.

[HCWS68]

Access to Work Backlog

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

The Access to Work scheme plays an important role in supporting disabled people and people with health conditions in, and into, work. The core ambition of the scheme is to ensure that disability is never a barrier to, or in, the workplace. The scheme is highly valued by the many disabled people it supports, disabled people’s organisations and employers.

Demand for Access to Work has risen sharply since the pandemic, with more than double the number of applications in 2024-25 than in 2018-19. Alongside this, we inherited a substantial backlog of around 57,000 cases awaiting a decision beyond the expected timescales.

I know how frustrating these delays are, and the impact they can have on the recruitment and retention of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

That is why we have already increased the number of staff working on Access to Work by around 30%—from 500 in March 2024 to 657 in March 2026—and continued to prioritise applications where a customer is due to start work within four weeks.

Thanks to the action and hard work of our colleagues, we have eliminated delays in making payments and cleared around 96% of cases where a customer was due to start work in four weeks within 28 days.

This is important progress, but there is more to do.

Today I am announcing a clear plan of action to clear the backlog in applications by September 2027.

We will recruit an additional 480 case staff to process the higher volume of applications. When recruitment is complete, we will have more than twice as many staff working on Access to Work as in March 2024. The recruitment process has already begun, and new case managers will receive extensive training to handle complex applications with confidence. This will ensure that disabled people and people with health conditions can receive timely support to secure and sustain employment.

This comes alongside wider work on Keep Britain Working, where Government are partnering with employers and stakeholders to develop practices and approaches to better support disabled people and those with health conditions in the workplace.

It is also important that we consider wider changes to the Access to Work scheme. We are keen to ensure that the scheme remains fair and sustainable. I know how important Access to Work is to the people it supports, so it is important that we take the time to get reforms right to deliver real improvements.

I have taken the time to consult widely and to collaborate with and gather evidence from disabled people, employers and representative bodies. I am now considering the insights from the collaboration committee process, the recent National Audit Office report and work with the independent disability advisory panel to help shape potential wider changes to the scheme.

This announcement is a great step to help deliver an Access to Work that is timely and efficient and can meet the new levels of demand. It will restore confidence in the capability of the scheme to award the right support at the right time, and sets a pathway towards wider improvements.

[HCWS34]