Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate her Department has made of the number of Personal Independence Payment recipients who (a) rely on that payment to work and (b) might lose money as a result of her Department's proposed changes to the Personal Independence Payment eligibility criteria.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Some 17% of PIP claimants are in employment. No assessment has been made on the number of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) recipients who rely on their PIP payment to work.
However, an assessment has been made on the number of PIP recipients who might lose money as a result of the proposed changes to eligibility, and can be found in the ‘The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill: Change to Personal Independence Payment eligibility requirement from the Department for Work and Pensions - June 2025’ impact assessment, in table 3, found at the following website: Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill publications - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament (https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3988/publications). Many people who are no longer entitled to the Daily Living component of PIP will still, however, receive the mobility component.
Table 3 outlines that by 2029/30, a minimum 4-point score requirement would result in an estimated 60,000 current PIP claimants (as at October 2026) moving from the enhanced rate of PIP daily living to the nil rate, and 320,000 current PIP claimants (as at October 2026) moving from the standard rate of PIP daily living to the nil rate. It would also result in an estimated 40,000 new claims not being entitled to the enhanced daily living component and 390,000 new claims not being entitled to the standard daily living component (post October 2026).
Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026 for PIP, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, no one will lose PIP without first being reassessed by a trained assessor or healthcare professional, who assesses individual needs and circumstance. Reassessments happen on average every 3 years. No one over state pension age at the time any changes come in will be affected.
The change includes a run-on of PIP entitlement for 13 weeks as a financial protection, which will apply to claimants who lose entitlement on award review because of the new requirement. This run-on will extend to passported benefits such as Carer’s Allowance and the UC carer’s element. Claimants will continue to receive these awards during the run on period.
The number of people currently on PIP who did not score 4 points in one category in their last assessment should not be equated with the number who are likely to lose PIP in future. It’s important to make a clear distinction between the two, not least because we don’t want constituents to be unnecessarily fearful about their situation, when we understand many are already anxious. Someone who didn’t score 4 points in an activity in a previous assessment may well score 4 points in a future assessment – not least as many conditions tend to get worse, not better, over time. Under the current eligibility criteria, 19% of award reviews over the last 5 years have resulted in an increased award.
After accounting for behavioural changes, the OBR predicts that 9 out 10 PIP recipients at the time of policy implementation are expected to be unaffected by the PIP 4-point change in 2029/30.
Even with these reforms, the overall number of working age people on PIP/DLA is expected to rise by 750,000 by the end of this Parliament and spending will rise from £23 billion in 24/25 to £31 billion in 29/30.
We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 20 May 2025 to Question 53578 on Genocide Convention, whether his Department made an assessment of the merits that Israel was in breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in July 2024.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The UK's long-standing policy is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. It should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.
In the context of export licensing, Criterion 1 of the UK's Strategic Export Licensing Criteria requires respect for the UK's international obligations and commitments. We have carefully collated, reviewed and assessed relevant evidence concerning the Gaza conflict. In September, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict. The action we have taken, as announced to Parliament, is consistent with all our legal obligations, including those under the Arms Trade Treaty and Genocide Convention, and we remain wholly committed to international law.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on the funding of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The Foreign Secretary has been clear with Foreign Minister Sa'ar that Israel must allow unrestricted aid into Gaza. In their latest call, the Foreign Secretary shared concerns about the rising risks of famine and starvation in Gaza, as well as the new aid delivery system, including the reduction of aid delivery points in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary was clear that aid cannot be used as a weapon of war. In our statement to the UN Security Council on 13 May, we made clear that the UK will not support any aid mechanism that prioritises political or military objectives or puts vulnerable civilians at risk. The UK supports the UN and humanitarian partners. We have endorsed the UN's plan for delivery of aid put forward on 16 May - it is based on humanitarian principles, has built in mitigations against aid diversion and uses established mechanisms to deliver at the scale required. We call on Israel to urgently engage with the UN to ensure a return to a full and unhindered resumption of the safe delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what discussions he has had with his Israeli counterparts on the application of the global humanitarian principles of (a) humanity, (b) impartiality, (c) independence and (d) neutrality in relation to Israel's policies in Gaza.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
On 19 May, the UK signed a joint donor statement with 26 other humanitarian donors, which directly called on Israel to allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza and enable the UN and humanitarian organisations to work independently and impartially to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. This statement referenced humanitarian principles, underscoring that humanitarian principles matter for every conflict around the world and should be applied consistently in every warzone. Further, our statement to the UN Security Council on 13 May was clear that the UK will not support any aid mechanism that prioritises political or military objectives or puts civilians at risk. The UK government has repeatedly called on the Government of Israel to abide by its obligations under International Humanitarian Law to ensure full, rapid, safe and unhindered provision of humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary has reiterated this in his recent calls with Israeli Foreign Minister Sa'ar.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will publish the Research Report: Long-Range Shootings or Shootings of Minors included in evidence in the case of Al-Haq v Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
Answered by Douglas Alexander - Secretary of State for Scotland
We do not comment on live litigation.
The Foreign Secretary has determined that Israel is not committed to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in operations in Gaza. A summary of the assessment resulting in the September suspension decision can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-the-international-humanitarian-law-ihl-process-decision-and-the-factors-taken-into-account/summary-of-the-ihl-process-decision-and-the-factors-taken-into-account.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what estimate his Department has made of (a) the number of airstrikes carried out by Israel in Gaza between October 2023 and September 2024, (b) the number of those his Department has examined for potential breaches of international law and (c) the number of those examined that were assessed as potentially involving violations of international law.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
Our International Humanitarian Law (IHL) assessments, which assess Israel's compliance and commitment to IHL in the conflict in Gaza, use data on verified incidents, including but not limited to airstrikes, provided by a third-party specialising in geolocation. We do not track every single incident or airstrike as part of this process.
While the assessments have raised concerns about possible breaches of IHL in the areas of humanitarian access, the treatment of detainees, and forced displacement, we have not been able to reach a determination in relation to the conduct of hostilities due to the lack of sufficient, verifiable evidence. To determine a possible breach in this area requires access to sensitive specific information related to individual incidents, such as the intended targets, anticipated military advantage and anticipated civilian harm, which is often not available to us.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether it remains his policy that any determination as to whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza is a matter for a competent national or international court.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The UK's long-standing policy is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether he has made a determination under the Genocide Convention.
Answered by Stephen Doughty - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The UK's long-standing policy is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. It should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process. As a party to the Convention, the UK is fully committed to the prevention and punishment of genocide as appropriate under the Convention.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what estimate her Department has made of potential additional costs to her Department of the provisions outlined in the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper, published in March 2025.
Answered by Jim McMahon
This Department makes regular assessments of spending pressures; these take account of various factors including new policy.
The Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper is an open consultation led by the Department for Work and pensions which seeks views on the approaches government should consider around reform of the health and disability benefits system and employment support. The consultation closes on 30 June 2025.
As such, it is not current policy, and a full assessment will be made in the usual way at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of her proposed changes to Personal Independence Payment on people with (a) Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and (b) other fluctuating illnesses.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
In January 2025, there were around 25,000 working age claimants in England and Wales that have their main disability recorded as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, excluding those treated under Special Rules for End of Life. Around 12,000 received less than 4 points across all daily living descriptors. The primary health conditions recorded on the PIP computer system are not classified according to whether they are fluctuating or not, therefore information can only be given for specified conditions.
The Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment looks at how a long-term health condition or disability impacts on daily life across 12 activities, taking into account fluctuations over a 12-month period. The activities are grouped into two components, daily living and mobility, and within each activity a descriptor must be chosen to score an individual depending on whether an individual can complete the activity, the manner in which they do it, and whether they can complete each activity safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period.
The assessment is designed to reflect the impact of variations in an individual's needs for all health conditions, not only those which more typically fluctuate. Health conditions may be physical, sensory, mental, intellectual or cognitive, or any combination of these, and the assessment is designed to take a comprehensive approach to disability, reflecting the needs arising from the full range of impairments.
Health professionals are expected to be mindful of the fact that many conditions fluctuate, producing symptoms that vary in intensity from mild to severe, and are instructed not to base their opinion solely on the situation as observed at the assessment. Health Professionals also have access to Condition Insight Reports (CIRs)/EBM Protocols which are developed specifically to enable them to gain further insight into clinical and functional information, relating to specific conditions.