Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

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

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them.

My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state:

“The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.”

Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations.

I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked

“why impoverishing”

disabled people

“to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]

The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option.

There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I am a great believer in a wealth tax, rather than taking money from disabled people—simple as, bottom line. What would a wealth tax look like, as far as the Green party is concerned?

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle.

Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes.

A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose.

The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

If we are honest, it is not good practice, as we saw last week, to make long-term social policy in a rush or in a vacuum. All parts of the benefits system, including the universal credit health element, need to be considered. Without that, we do not have a complete picture of the system or the challenges that disabled people face. One of the fears of disabled people’s organisations is that the funding envelope for reform is still the same, and the Timms review will simply look at different ways to achieve the same financial ends. Can the Minister clarify whether the review starts with a target for how much money it must save, or whether this is a genuine attempt to redesign the system so that it benefits everyone, even if it ends up costing more?

[Ian Lavery]

Is my hon. Friend aware that 25% of those claiming the health element of universal credit used a food bank last year, or that a third of those who claim it could not afford to heat their homes last year?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.