The Department works collaboratively across Government and law enforcement agencies to investigate welfare fraud perpetrated by organised criminal gangs. This type of criminality is complex and far-reaching, and a collaborative approach is therefore essential. I am pleased to confirm that new powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will help us better tackle organised crime by taking greater control of our investigations through new powers of entry, search and seizure.
Having spent my career before entering this place tackling fraud, I recognise the scale of the challenge, so I commend the Secretary of State for her leadership, with the biggest ever crackdown on benefit fraud. Given the success of whistleblower reward schemes in tax and financial crime, does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is merit in exploring similar schemes to uncover organised fraud in the benefits system, so that more funds can be recovered to support those who genuinely need support: our constituents?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We take all allegations of fraud seriously. People who suspect fraud against the Department for Work and Pensions can use existing channels to report it, including the national benefit fraud hotline. This Government are not complacent. As I mentioned in my substantive reply, we are taking action with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which will provide a range of new powers to address fraud and error in the social security system, after the Conservative party failed to substantively update our powers to tackle ever-more complex fraud during 14 long years in office. However, I will watch with interest whether there is learning from the schemes my hon. Friend mentioned that could be applied to cases of benefit fraud.
Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?
I am very happy to raise with the Home Office the issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but I would say to him, and indeed to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, that what genuinely undermines confidence in the welfare system is the record of the previous Government, who allowed welfare fraud to spiral towards £10 billion a year and failed to take the powers needed, as we are doing now, to get that number down.
If I may briefly say so, I am very proud that the spending review delivered the largest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people—quadrupling what we inherited from the last Government to over £1 billion a year, or a total of £3.5 billion over this Parliament—so that those who can work get the support they need, while we protect those who can never work.
Tackling child poverty is my personal priority, so I am proud that the Education Secretary and I are bringing in free school meals for all children in families on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty—a down payment on our child poverty strategy. We are also delivering the first ever three-year funding settlement for the household support fund, including for holiday hunger, and we are committed to funding the holiday activities and food programme, stopping kids going hungry while they are at school and during the holidays, too.
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. One of the best ways of reducing child poverty is helping parents into good, stable and well-paid jobs, which the SNP Scottish Government are failing abjectly to do. For example, the SNP manifesto in 2021 promised to double investment in the paternal employment fund to £15 million over two years to help low-income families get into work. However, in 2023 that pledge was scrapped. Will the Secretary of State call on the Scottish Government to put some of their record funding into employability funds, to help my Livingston constituents get into work and to provide good jobs right across Scotland?
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Economic inactivity is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, and a staggering one in six young Scots are not in education, employment or training. We have delivered an extra £9 billion for Scotland over the spending review—the biggest settlement in the history of devolution—and I hope the SNP will match our ambition to get people who can work into work by investing in employment services, not cutting them, as they have in recent years.
The expansion of free school meals will massively help families in my constituency of Gloucester and take them out of poverty. Can the Secretary of State confirm how many more families in Gloucester will be eligible for free school meals under the Government’s expansion, and what steps is she taking with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that every child is able to access that support?
This vital step will benefit 7,560 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It comes on top of rolling out free breakfast clubs, starting with Calton and Grange primary schools in his constituency, our new fair repayment rate in universal credit, and the first ever permanent, above-inflation increase in the standard allowance of universal credit, a vital part of our welfare reforms, putting more money into the pockets of hard-working families and helping to give all children the best start in life.
At the lobby last week by the food banks, a number of people expressed the wish to have greater facilities to educate their clients with respect to shopping and preparing meals more effectively. They make a fair point, don’t they?
As the former chair of Feeding Leicester, I know that many of our food banks offer a range of support, helping to signpost people to mental health treatment, debt advice and other measures to improve their wellbeing. They certainly do not need any advice from Conservative Members. Under their watch, we saw 900,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in poverty. It is time they took a lesson from this side of the House to get this issue right.
Probably the largest single driver of child poverty in my communities is the enormous cost of housing. The average house price in my community is up to 13 times average household incomes. That drives grinding poverty, particularly among children. Will the Secretary of State have a word with her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that a disproportionate amount of housing grant goes to rural communities such as mine, in particular with the Windermere Gateway scheme?
Reducing housing costs is one of the key things we are looking at in the child poverty taskforce in advance of our strategy, which we will publish in the autumn. We are investing an additional £39 billion in building more social, affordable and other homes, but I will, of course, always raise all issues relating to housing, because kids deserve to live in good homes that are affordable. That is what this Government intend to achieve.
As is the case for my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), a number of my constituents are affected by the two-child cap, with the latest statistics showing that 330 households in my constituency are impacted. I absolutely agree with a number of charities that removing the cap alone is not a silver bullet to tackle child poverty, but it will make a difference. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the child poverty taskforce is considering the removal of the two-child cap?
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. I can absolutely confirm that the child poverty strategy will be looking at all the levers we need to tackle this really important issue, including in relation to social security. She is impatient for change for her constituents, as am I. We have already put in place a fair repayment rate for universal credit, we are increasing the standard allowance for universal credit for the first time in its history, and we are rolling out free school meals, but I will of course take her representations forward and ensure that they are heard by the taskforce.
When the Government’s own impact assessment for the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper suggests that 50,000 children will be plunged into poverty and businesses are already slashing vacancies in the light of the Employment Rights Bill, does the Secretary of State really believe that the Government’s child poverty taskforce is pushing in the same direction as the rest of the Government?
The hon. Gentleman will know that that assessment does not take into account all the steps that we are taking to get more sick and disabled people into work, with the biggest ever investment into support—support that was denied to them by Conservative Members, who wrote people off, consigned them to a life on benefit and then blamed them. We take a different approach. We believe that sick and disabled people should have the same rights, chances and choices to work as anybody else. That will be a key measure in tackling poverty.
We all know the importance of work, and since the election we have seen employment rise by 500,000, but Britain is a country that has too few young adults in work or education, and where the post-pandemic employment recovery has taken too long. That is why we will continue our reforms to support more people into work.
To cut spending and balance the books, Labour has to get people off welfare, but the Chancellor’s job tax and the Deputy Prime Minister’s unemployment Bill mean that there are fewer jobs for them to go to. Some 285 more of my constituents are out of work than last year, and since the Budget a quarter of a million jobs have vanished. A rise in public sector roles in the same period is probably masking a far deeper crisis going on in the private sector. There is no joined-up thinking. Has the Secretary of State warned her Cabinet colleagues that their policies are making her job impossible?
The Secretary of State inherited a labour market that was a mess under the Conservatives, with nearly 1 million young people not in education or training, and 2.8 million too sick to work. Employment is up by 500,000. Economic inactivity—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not like to hear it, but economic inactivity is down by 300,000 under this Government. No one on the Government Benches will take lectures on a good labour market from the Conservatives.
Unemployment is now 115,000 higher than when Labour took office. The Chancellor’s new jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill make hiring a new person more expensive. The family farms and family business taxes are reducing investment. Can the Minister therefore explain how he will reduce unemployment while the Chancellor is pursuing policies that increase it?
I do not want to try the patience of the House but, as I have said, employment is up by 500,000 under this Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to talk about that. The hon. Gentleman mentions what British business wants—what British business wants is a Government who are actually fixing the public finances and the public services that mean that when a member of staff gets sick, they do not sit on a waiting list for years, as they did under the previous Government. The Conservatives like to attack the Employment Rights Bill, but stopping good employers being undercut by bad is the pro-business thing to do.
Paisley jobcentre runs a “Take a job to work” day, where work coaches look for local employment opportunities and take those suggestions into the jobcentre to match jobseekers with local jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of local innovation in jobcentres, and would the Government consider sharing that good practice across the rest of the country?
I thank everyone in Paisley who has been working on those practices—it is exactly the kind of innovation we like to see. Under the Conservatives, only one in six employers said they bothered to engage with their local jobcentre, which is exactly what we need to change with our reforms to Jobcentre Plus. I thank everyone in Paisley, but there is much more to do right across the UK.
The previous Government left us with one in eight young people out of work, training or education, and with 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, not only costing the economy billions more but costing people opportunity, hope and dignity, and now the Conservatives cannot even agree a plan among themselves to address that. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative party is in chaos, while this Government are bringing forward sensible plans to give the country a way forward after the mess the Conservatives left it in?
That was a powerful and long question, and I am glad that Conservative Members listened to every word of it, because they left us 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—that is what a disgrace looks like. What is happening now? We have seen falling numbers of NEETs over the past quarter and the past year.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?
A firm footing for economic recovery looks like kicking the Conservative party out of office and growing the economy once again, and that is what we see if we look at the data. The hon. Lady likes to look at one month’s data—well, let us look at it. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that vacancies rose by 27% between April and May. I know the Conservatives want to pretend that everything was wonderful a year ago, but every business and every voter in this country knows that that was not the case.
Honestly, who does the Minister think he is fooling with this spiel? Growth forecasts have been slashed and inflation has surged. What world is he living in? The Government have been in office for a year and people are losing their jobs because of the decisions that they have made. How does he think his “everything’s fine” mantra actually sounds to one of the people who have lost their jobs or to a business facing a tax bill that it cannot afford? Has the Secretary of State even told her Back Benchers, who will be strong-armed into voting for cuts next week, that the welfare cuts Bill that we will be debating will get a grand total of zero people into work, according to the Government’s own impact assessment?
The hon. Lady asks about what is going on with the economy. What is going on is that we have had four rate cuts over the past year. What is going on is that we have signed three trade deals over the past year. What is going on is that employment has gone up and inactivity has gone down. I know that the Opposition love to latch on to one month’s data, but let us look at the whole period of this Government: wages have increased by more under this party in the past 10 months than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.
The current PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to follow. Alongside proposed legislative changes, the Department’s health transformation programme will greatly improve the experience of applying and, I hope, increase confidence in the outcomes of the assessment as a result.
The response to my recent written question on disability benefits applications listed the 18 most common disabilities and health conditions and showed that hundreds of thousands of people were awarded fewer than four points in all living activities and will miss out on the daily living component of PIP. They include people like Jemima in Harpenden, who suffers from severe physical disabilities and thyroid cancer and finds even walking very difficult. Will the Government please commit to reforming the criteria to better reflect the full complexity of claimants’ conditions?
I recognise that many people who are on the PIP daily living component who did not get four points on anything at their last assessment are feeling rather anxious. However, what they need to know—I hope the hon. Member will reassure her constituents on this—is that it is the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility that most of them will nevertheless still have their PIP after their fresh assessment once the changes have been introduced. They will be introduced in November next year and an individual’s assessment will take place whenever their first award review is after that date. The OBR is confident and clear that most of those people will keep their PIP.
Over 4,500 people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire claim PIP, and they are not just anxious, as you put it; they are seriously worried that they are going to lose the payments and, with them, their independence. Contrary to what you said—sorry, contrary to what the Minister said—the Government’s own data suggests that 85% of people getting standard payments and 11.5% of those getting enhanced payments will lose support under the proposed changes. What steps is the Minister taking to support those who will be affected, including to make sure that their health and eligible care needs are met and, most importantly, that they can maintain their independence?
I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.
It is really important for claimants of PIP that its funding should be sustainable into the future. The trajectory of the past few years has been unsustainable. We are taking action to put that right. The hon. Member is wrong to say that because people did not get four points last time, they will not keep their PIP. As I said, the view of the OBR, which I think is correct, is that most of them will. We are consulting on how to support those who will lose their PIP as a result of the changes that we have announced.
Ministers have highlighted that the PIP recipients who are expected to lose payments make up one in 10 of the total PIP caseload. That suggests that the impact of the cuts will be limited, but it still represents 370,000 current recipients, who are expected to lose £4,500 on average. However, those numbers rest on a set of assumptions that the OBR has described as “highly uncertain”. DWP data shows that 1.3 million people currently receiving PIP daily living payments would not meet the new criteria. Before MPs are asked to vote on imposing such appalling poverty, will the DWP or the OBR provide further evidence underpinning those claims?
The OBR has published its assessment, and my hon. Friend is right that it has assessed that one in 10 of those receiving PIP in November next year will have lost it by 2029-30—one in 10; not the much larger proportion that we were hearing about earlier. Following that, we will be able to introduce the biggest ever investment in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds. We do not want any longer to trap people on low incomes for years and years; we want people to be able to enter work and fulfil their ambitions. That is what the investment will allow.
Is it not the simple and sad truth that any MP who votes for the upcoming welfare Bill will be voting to take PIP from disabled people who need assistance to cut up their food, wash themselves and go to the toilet?
No. Members will be voting for reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far too long. We are putting that right.
I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?
We are putting in place a fairer system. Action was urgently needed. In the year before the pandemic, PIP cost the Government £12 billion at current prices, and last year it cost £22 billion. It also went up last year alone by £2.8 billion. PIP required urgent action, and that is what we are taking.
I am just sorry that there has been so little consultation with the victims of the changes that the Government are introducing. One area where the Government do not seem to be looking for savings is in the Motability scheme. It was supposed to help physically disabled people get around, but now we have 100,000 new people a year joining the scheme, many of them not physically disabled at all. One in five of all new car purchases are bought through this scheme, and it is costing taxpayers nearly £3 billion a year. I know that the Minister will blame us for the system, but the fact is that the Government are not even looking at Motability. They have had a year, and it is their policy now. Will the Minister commit to a proper review of the Motability scheme, and if not, why not?
I am not sure whether the shadow Minister wants me to go further or not so far—he seems to be facing both ways. He is right that we are not at this point proposing any changes to the Motability scheme.
Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?
Among households as a whole, there will be more net gainers than net losers from the package. The reason for that is the increase to the standard allowance of universal credit, which according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the biggest increase to the headline rate of benefit since at least 1980. We are consulting on support for those who will lose carer’s allowance because of the changes and considering what additional help they may need, including for health and care needs. The hon. Member will have seen in the Bill we have published that we have committed to a 13-week run-on of benefit after an assessment decision so that people have time to adjust to the new situation.
We are building a new jobs and careers service for all, including those on universal credit, as the cornerstone of our Get Britain Working reforms. This new service will build towards an 80% employment rate, closing the gaps between disabled people and others and between parents and those without caring responsibilities, and dealing with the crisis in youth unemployment. We are also changing universal credit to stop people being left on the scrapheap, as per our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper.
Last week, I held an emergency community meeting for 250 workers in my constituency who are about to lose their jobs following the closure of the electric fibreglass site in Hindley Green. It was heartbreaking. Some families have three generations of workers who have powered the blast furnace and produced materials for our energy, defence and housing sectors. I am bitterly disappointed that after the hard graft of the Government, me, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the GMB union, it has come to this, and another foreign company is closing a blast furnace in our country. What is the Minister doing to get workers like those back into work, so that they can do what they want to do, which is contribute to a strong industrial future?
Specifically on the business that my hon. Friend mentioned, the Department’s rapid response service has worked with those affected and is keen to do more. I will personally ensure that he is put in touch with my colleagues in the Department so that he can help facilitate that, too.
More broadly, like many industrial communities, my hon. Friend’s constituency deserves more good jobs. Our industrial strategy will help lead the way on that, as will the Chancellor’s investment plans set out in the recent spending review. I know that if my hon. Friend feels that we need to do more for his constituency, he will not hold back in telling us.
My constituent Tracy is living in local authority temporary accommodation after fleeing domestic violence. She is currently trapped on universal credit because the cost of her accommodation is way beyond anything she could earn locally—by a factor of about 10. As a single young person, she faces years before she is likely to be allocated a flat, and she is rightly concerned that future employers would question her years of unemployment and under-employment. She wants to work full time but has been advised not to do so. Does the Minister agree that we need to do something to address the cliff edge?
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that important case to the House. Universal credit has no fixed hours requirement, but the connection between housing costs and universal credit, as she mentioned, is still a problem. I would be keen to look at the detail of her constituent’s case. Universal credit was introduced with the promise that it would move people off benefits and into work, but that clearly has not happened as we need it to happen, so considerable work is under way to deal with the inadequacies of the mess that the Conservative Government left us.
There are 300 more people on out-of-work benefits in Basildon and Billericay than there were 12 months ago. Local businesses tell me that that is because business rates have gone up under the Labour Government, national insurance tax has gone up under the Labour Government and taxes on investment for the long term have gone up under the Labour Government. Does the Minister agree, or has she got another explanation for the fact that 300 more of my constituents are unemployed than there were 12 months ago?
Our Department is determined to serve businesses well. If the right hon. Member would like to help his local jobcentre do that and get good jobs into the jobcentre so that we can help his constituents, I am sure that I can facilitate that. However, he should be aware that employment is up and inactivity is down. We are moving towards an 80% employment rate, and the Chancellor’s investment plans, as she set out in the spending review, will help us move towards that.
The Government’s proposals to change benefits have a compound consequence for people wanting to stay in work. For example, the Department has said that 95,000 working-age claimants receive carer’s allowance and, under the proposals, would lose the PIP they receive. Does the Minister agree that those proposals will actually make it harder for people to stay in work, rather than easier as they claim?
As the Secretary of State set out some moments ago, we are introducing the biggest improvement to employment support that the country has known. We will ensure that people receive the help they need to get into work and to stay in work.
The issue of economic abuse through the Child Maintenance Service is a serious one, which this Government are looking to address urgently. I am pleased to say that a response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation was published earlier today. We intend to reform the CMS into a single service type, where the CMS collects and transfers all payments. This reform will drastically reduce opportunities for economic abuse throughout the service and make sure that money gets to the children who need it. We estimate that this change alone could lift more than 20,000 children out of poverty.
I have too many constituents whose financial abuse is effectively being perpetuated and facilitated by the Child Maintenance Service. I have secured a meeting with the relevant Minister in the other place, but it has been postponed. Could the Minister help me to secure a date for that meeting? I am sure that he would agree that if the system is at fault, it needs to change.
I hope the hon. Member has heard me say that we concur with the need for change. We have announced changes in the right direction today, and I will of course pick up with my fellow Minister about securing that meeting for her. I know they have already been in protracted talks about arranging it, and I will make sure it happens.
My constituent, Deborah, should receive monthly child maintenance payments for her daughter, but her former partner withholds payments, despite my complaints and hers to the DWP Child Maintenance Service complaints team, advising them that he deliberately withholds payments for three months and then backdates them. That is a form of abuse and controlling behaviour, but the DWP complaints team have advised me today that there is nothing they can do to prevent it, despite a deduction-from-earnings order being in place. Does the Minister agree that that is a completely inadequate response that requires a ministerial review of the system?
I am sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted. He will have heard the reform that I announced earlier, but I absolutely understand why he wants to raise this issue for his constituent, and if he would like to meet me to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that.
The short answer to that question is yes. The Department is contributing to two consultations that will shortly be published by the Business and Energy Departments. They will invite views on the new UK sustainability reporting standards and transition plans. This will help investors, including pension savers and their schemes, to understand the impact of climate and nature on investments.
As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on sustainable finance and on global deforestation, I remain concerned that around £388 billion in UK pension savings is still invested in fossil fuels and deforestation-related activities. Will the Minister reassure me further that undermining the long-term financial security of savers in South East Cornwall is not the Government’s intention, and will he commit to reviewing this, including via the Pension Schemes Bill and the landmark pensions review?
My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner on this issue for some years, and she will know that larger pension schemes are now required to publish annual reports with climate-related disclosures. The evidence shows that around two thirds of pension funds have a net zero commitment in place, and we will be reviewing those regulations over the course of this year.
It is very important that those who have pensions get a return, so that their pensions are beneficial. It is also important to ensure that net zero is delivered, because many people who have pensions want to see that happen. It is about getting a balance, so how will the Minister get that balance?
On the first part of the hon. Member’s question, I do not want to get the balance, because we want to make sure that savers get the absolute best value they can for every buck they save. I completely endorse his sentiment on that part; that is the very purpose of the Pension Schemes Bill that is coming through. On the second part of his question, I also endorse the point that he makes. When we look at those disclosures, we see that they set out a balance of judgments about the requirements on schemes, but they also provide greater transparency so that both individuals and the schemes themselves can take a view about the investments.
Many disabled people want to work, but only 17% of people on personal independence payments are in employment. We believe that disabled people should have the same rights, chances and choices to work as anybody else, which is why we are delivering the biggest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Tories to over £1 billion a year, and it is why we have asked the former boss of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, to review what more we can do to support employers to recruit and retain more disabled people.
One of my constituents, who has epilepsy, responded to the “Pathways to Work” consultation and highlighted that the questions implied that the Department views PIP as a pity payment, rather than a benefit designed to offset the extra costs of disability, such as seizure alert devices or accessible transport. Without such support, disabled people are less able to live independently. Does the Minister agree that cutting PIP payments simply pushes more disabled people further from living independently and from employment?
I do not recognise the attitude that the hon. Member describes—quite frankly, we feel precisely the opposite. This vital benefit makes a crucial contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability. That is why we want to reform it to protect it for generations to come, because we do not think that it is sustainable to have a doubling of the number of people on PIP over this decade from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. It is also why we are putting in extra employment support, why we want to support employers to do more to recruit and retain disabled people, and why we want to reform Access to Work—a vital scheme that helps people—because disabled people should have equal rights, chances and choices to work, and that is what we seek to deliver.
This morning, I had the pleasure of visiting PACT for Autism, a brilliant local charity in Harlow. It raised concerns about the accessibility of the PIP application process for those with autism. As the Department looks to reform the process, could that be considered?
I absolutely will consider that. In fact, I ask my hon. Friend and his constituents to feed into the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing. We have to ensure that it is as easy and effective as possible to access that vital benefit. It is crucial for people with autism, and we want to make it work properly.
Given our objective to reduce the number of children in poverty overall, I expect the impact of the child poverty strategy on children in Stroud to be positive, as all children benefit when the whole community can rely on children enjoying a good childhood. We will publish the child poverty strategy as soon as possible, but, as we have said, we are not waiting to act. The Secretary of State has listed a number of initiatives that we have already been getting on with.
In Stroud, after 14 years of austerity, over 4,000 children are living in poverty. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report stated that after removing the two-child limit, the next most effective way of reducing child poverty is to get rid of the benefit cap. Would the Minister be willing at least to review the benefit cap?
As the Secretary of State has already said, all policies that can lift children out of poverty are under consideration by the taskforce. We obviously will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it; neither, as I have said, will we wait to act if there are steps we can take immediately. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I will take as input to the child poverty taskforce. I also take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the five parliamentary sessions that the taskforce has hosted since November 2024.
Will the Minister give an update on the work the Department is doing with the North East Mayor Kim McGuinness’s child poverty reduction unit to tackle the specific drivers of that issue in our region?
Child poverty is a significant challenge in the north-east, and that is why it is right that Mayor Kim McGuinness participated in an early session of the taskforce and has shaped the agenda since then. The child poverty reduction unit engages regularly with colleagues from the north-east and will hold a dedicated session on strategy with the north-east child poverty commission this week. Mayors have been absolutely critical to the development of the strategy, and we will continue to work closely with them.
As in Stroud and the north-east, children in poverty rely on food banks to get by—6,617 food parcels in my constituency alone. Will the Government take the advice of the Trussell Trust and seek and follow independent advice on the universal credit standard allowance?
As Labour’s manifesto said, the emergency food parcels that we have seen are a “moral scar” on our country. That is why I am glad that, as Ministers have said, we are increasing the standard allowance for the first time in—as long as I can remember, certainly. I am also pleased that emergency food parcels were down this year.
If a person is out of work and is offered a job, they are required to accept appropriate work that is offered to them. The focus of our Get Britain Working reforms is to address the current situation whereby nearly 3 million people are out of work sick and not actively looking for work, and 1.7 million people are out of work but are not getting the help they deserve from the existing jobcentre system.
R and J Yorkshire’s Finest butchers in Kirkby Malzeard have had multiple job applications via jobcentres from people who they think never had an intention of going to interview or taking a job. May I urge the Minister to look at how incentives and penalties are matched up, to ensure that people actually turn up to interview and take a job?
The right hon. Gentleman mentions a problem that I think is central to the situation that we have inherited. That is why, as I mentioned in response to the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), we are changing the way that DWP acts, so that we serve employers better and match people who actually want to move into those jobs. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow me, I will connect him with his local jobcentre manager, so that he can link up the businesses he mentions.
Protecting those who can never work is at the heart of our welfare reforms. That is why, in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, we are ensuring that those with severe, lifelong conditions, which will never improve and which mean they will never work, and those at the end of their lives are guaranteed the higher rate of the universal credit health top-up, protecting one in 10 of all future universal credit health top-up claims. We are also going further by ensuring that those who meet the severe conditions criteria are never again reassessed, in order to stop unnecessary anxiety and stress, helping 200,000 people over this Parliament.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I have been working with disabled constituents, our local jobcentre and employers to ensure that everyone is working together to maximise opportunities for disabled people, and that they are not just recruited but retained and thriving in jobs locally. However, some people will never be able to work or return to work, including many people with advanced progressive multiple sclerosis, and it is right that they are properly supported. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what support will be in place for people like my constituents living with this disease?
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing locally. As I said, those with severe lifelong conditions —progressive conditions that will never improve, and which mean they will never work—will be protected. Even more importantly, they will never again be reassessed for their benefits, removing that unnecessary and unacceptable anxiety and stress, and giving them the dignity and security they deserve.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment. A recent freedom of information request by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that thousands of recipients whose primary health condition is listed as eye disease are set to lose out from the reforms to PIP, with referrals to the RNIB’s counselling services more than doubling since the Secretary of State announced the reforms. There are over 3,500 people in Leicester with sight impairment. What is her Department doing to help those constituents, given these harmful changes to PIP?
I know the brilliant work that the RNIB does and the brilliant sight services locally in Leicester—I have visited them myself. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that nine out of 10 people who are claiming PIP when these changes come into place will be unaffected by them. We are going to see 750,000 more people claiming PIP by the end of this Parliament compared with when we are elected, and, even with these changes, spending will still be £8 billion higher.
I am proud of the steps this Labour Government are taking to tackle child poverty. Our historic expansion of free school meals to families on universal credit will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and tackle term-time hunger. That is alongside the £2.5 billion we are investing in the household support fund, and our commitment to funding the holiday activities and food programme, which will tackle holiday hunger too. Making sure that children have hungry minds, not hungry bellies, will help them to fulfil their potential in life, and that is what this Labour Government are all about.
Closing the disability employment gap is a matter of opportunity for disabled people in my constituency. I recently visited M&M Supplies, a stand-out company in Bletchley, not only for its many exporting successes but because a quarter of its workforce are adults with learning disabilities and difficulties—and that is thanks mainly to the vision of managing director Frank Purcell, who works with organisations like MK SNAP to run a work experience programme for adults with disabilities. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that this Government are committed to working with employers to ensure that no disabled people in my constituency are written off?
I congratulate, through my hon. Friend, those in his constituency on the fantastic work that he has described. I recently visited an incredible supported internship programme that helps young people with learning disabilities to get work and stay in work, including in our local NHS and with our local hotel voco in the heart of Leicester. This Government are determined to tackle the disability employment gap, which fell under the last Labour Government, although movement stalled under the Tories. We are going to turn this around with the biggest ever investment in employment support, introducing mandatory disability pay gap reporting and looking at what more we can do to support brilliant employers, like the one my hon. Friend described, to recruit and retain more disabled people.
More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?
I have great personal respect for the hon. Lady but she really needs to make up her mind: first she says our proposals are too late, then she says they are rushed; she criticises us for being cruel, and then says the Opposition are going to vote against our Bill because it does not go far enough. But her deputy, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), has let the cat out of the bag, saying in a recent Westminster Hall debate:
“I am not able to tell…exactly what we would do.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 301WH.]
The truth is that the Conservatives are a broken party with no ideas, let alone a strategy—and, unless they change course, they have no future either.
Goodness me; I asked the right hon. Lady quite a serious question, so that was a very disappointing answer. However, she and I are in agreement that the benefits bill needs to come down, and that will need real reform of the system, so why is she pressing ahead in a panic with her half-baked cuts rather than doing the job properly? We would support a proper rethink of which conditions should get what help, and a better system for people struggling with mental health or neurodiversity, who would be better off in work than parked on benefits. Why did not she make that part of her plan?
Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing to improve mental health support for people in this country and to make sure that it is treated with equal importance to physical health: we have made significant progress towards recruiting the additional 8,500 mental health workers we said we would recruit in our manifesto to reduce delays and provide support; we have confirmed funding to help an extra 380,000 patients get access to talking therapies; and we are investing the biggest ever amount in employment support for sick and disabled people. I say to the hon. Lady, who left 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, that it is about time she apologised to the country and made up her mind about whether she will back our reforms.
I remind Members that topical questions and answers should be brief.
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?
Yes. Already this year, we are rolling out £300 million of support through our Get Britain Working plan and Connect to Work. That will rise to £600 million next year and build to an additional £1 billion. This is the biggest ever investment into employment support for sick and disabled people, because we believe work is the route out of poverty. We want to build dignity and a better life for those who can work, while protecting those who cannot.
Yes, I can. That is a firm commitment from me personally, and from the Prime Minister. We have made a start on that work: our expansion of free school meals to children in all households on universal credit will benefit, I think, around 6,500 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we are helping more people into work, which is the best way to tackle poverty in the long term. We have a long way to go, but we are absolutely committed to bringing those numbers down.
Yes, we absolutely want that to happen. Indeed, we want to record the assessments as standard to ensure that claimants have confidence in what is being done. This is an issue that causes huge anxiety among my constituents. Too many decisions take too long and are overturned, and we want to deal with these problems head-on.
I commend my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, including his seminal 2022 independent review. He is right that care leavers need support as they move to independent living. The Department for Work and Pensions at the moment exempts care leavers from the shared accommodation rate, and provides support toward sustained employment and career progression. We will certainly consider if there is more that we can do.
Nine out of 10 people who are on PIP when the changes come in will be unaffected by the end of this Parliament. Anybody who is affected will keep that benefit for three months—that is, I think, one of the longest transitional protections ever and certainly three times as long as when we move from disability living allowance to PIP. The important Access to Work fund is there precisely to help anybody who needs that sort of support to get into work. We will guarantee that during those three months, anyone who is affected and who uses their PIP for work will get access to an adviser who will help them to apply for Access to Work, because it is so important that we support them.
My hon. Friend will know that this Labour Government are investing billions extra into the NHS precisely so that we can drive down waits for vital operations and increase the number of people getting mental health treatment. It is also the case that good work is good for physical and mental health. There is very clear evidence on that, and that is one of the things we know that we can achieve with the £1 billion extra a year in employment support.
Matching the Scottish child payment by raising the child element of universal credit would bring more than half a million children out of poverty. The Secretary of State has been clear that a lot of issues are being considered by the child poverty taskforce. Is raising the child element of universal credit to the level of the Scottish child payment one of those matters?
At the risk of boring the House, let me say that all levers are very much on the table when it comes to getting our kids out of poverty.
My hon. Friend’s constituent will benefit from the big increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which we have talked about, and from free school meals for her children. Somebody who starts work or increases their hours may also be eligible for support with up-front childcare costs. The flexible support fund can award the full cost for up to a month of fees to a childcare provider in advance of the care being delivered, so that may be an option for his constituent.
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
This Government will always have the backs of working people, and I believe there will be a statement shortly on our modern industrial strategy. I know that Ministers from the Department for Business and Trade will be extremely engaged in the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just raised.
Many new mothers in Plymouth are claiming maternity allowance, not because they are unemployed, but because they do not qualify for statutory maternity pay; they may be self-employed, have recently changed jobs or have had a pregnancy-related sickness. Many of them have contacted me with concerns that maternity allowance is treated as unearned income and is therefore subject to universal credit deductions, unlike statutory maternity pay. What steps is the Department taking to ensure financial security for women in Plymouth who are claiming maternity allowance?
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The treatment of maternity allowance in universal credit was subject to a judicial review, which upheld the policy of treating it as unearned income when calculating universal credit and of treating SMP paid by employers as earnings, in common with other statutory payments made by employers. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—may be available to parents.
My constituent Tirath is currently being pursued by the Child Maintenance Service for £20,000, despite having successfully appealed the claim in 2022. He is now at risk of losing his professional status as a pharmacist because of this process. Will the Minister encourage the CMS to investigate that case urgently or to meet with me to discuss it?
I am very sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Member’s constituent. If she would like a meeting with me, I am very happy to give her that, and I am also happy to look into the matter, as she suggests.
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Previous changes in eligibility for disability benefits have resulted in significant adverse health impacts, including an additional 600 suicides in 2010 and 130,000 more people with new onset mental health conditions in 2017. What estimates have the Government undertaken of the impacts on health of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading next week?
I am looking forward to answering questions about these matters in front of the Committee on Wednesday morning. We are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met.
Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?
Through the child poverty taskforce, we have been looking at the issue of incomes versus expenditures. We are taking steps urgently where we are able, but we will have more to say about that issue shortly.