Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
We will not build the much-needed 1.5 million homes without bringing people into the construction sector. That is why, as part of our new approach for employers, we have partnered with the construction sector and set up specific schemes with them. We are also talking directly across Whitehall with other Government Departments and with the sector about moving people into great jobs in construction.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you back after the summer recess.
The hon. Lady can fling around the stats all she likes, but the facts are clear and bleak. Under her watch, youth unemployment has gone up; nearly a million young people, and rising, are not in work or education, including over 40,000 more young women. A generation of brilliant young people are going on to benefits, rather than into work. The Government’s jobs tax and their unemployment rights Bill were guaranteed to reduce opportunities for young people. We have had the winter fuel U-turn and the welfare U-turn; why not a U-turn to help young people?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome the NHS 10-year plan published by our right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, which gives a new priority and commitment to mental health support. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important part of tackling the problems that we need to resolve.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before, and the one thing I can confirm is that she is a powerful advocate for her constituents on this very important issue for them. As she knows, I cannot comment on individual cases—particularly as the matter is now with the Pensions Ombudsman—but more generally, it is important that promises made to pensioners about their pensions are lived up to. Making sure that happens is exactly why the Pensions Ombudsman exists.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Thanks to our Conservative winter fuel payments campaign, thousands of pensioners have signed up to pension credit, and millions more pensioners will receive winter fuel allowance, now that the Labour party has admitted that its policy on winter fuel payments was wrong. However, the Social Security Advisory Committee recently concluded that the Government’s winter fuel plans fall short of delivering their objectives of fairness, administrative simplicity and targeted support. It seems that the Government have prioritised civil service bureaucracy over helping frozen pensioners. Does the Minister agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee’s conclusion about their policies?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I congratulate Members on all sides of this House who have run campaigns to drive up pension credit uptake. That is very important, and it is why we have seen 60,000 extra awards over the course of the year to July 2025 compared with the previous year. That work, which is very welcome, has been done by not just Members but civil society organisations and local authorities.
On the points that the hon. Member raised about the process for winter fuel payments this winter and going forward, I do not agree with the characterisation he chose to present. Particularly on the tax side, the process will be automatic. Nobody will be brought into tax or self-assessment purely because of that change; the vast majority of people will have their winter fuel payments automatically recouped through the pay-as-you-earn system; and anyone who wants to can opt out. I remind Members that the deadline for that is 15 September.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Around a year ago, the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government around 3 million pensioners in poverty. Sadly, last winter’s cuts to the winter fuel payment saw many pensioners pushed into hardship. In the light of winter fuel price hikes, will the Minister reconsider the Government’s proposals and ensure that moneys are paid to pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment last winter?
Liz Kendall
In the spending review we announced this first ever multi-year settlement for local support, replacing the household support fund. The crisis and resilience fund will provide £1 billion every single year, and will give families emergency help if, for example, their white goods break down or they need food urgently. However, we want to start shifting it increasingly towards tackling the root causes of poverty, helping people to become more financially resilient through the provision of debt advice. We recently held a meeting with more than 600 stakeholders to discuss how we could achieve that shift, because we want to prevent people from falling into poverty and to give them the tools that they need to emerge from poverty themselves.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Lady back after the summer. She said recently that it had been “a bumpy…few months”—an understatement, in my view. Last time we stood here, she had just completed a rather humiliating climbdown on her welfare savings plans. She set out to save money, but ended up spending it. You couldn’t make it up, Mr Speaker, but here we are: the number of benefit claimants has hit a record high; the sickness benefit bill is heading up and up; and still the right hon. Lady has Back Benchers and Cabinet colleagues calling for even more spending on welfare. The Chancellor is busy doing her sums in advance of the Budget, so can the right hon. Lady tell us how much lifting the two-child benefits cap will cost?
Helen Whately
I asked the right hon. Lady a simple question, but I fear that she does not know the answer; she certainly did not reply to it. What is clear is that Labour wants to spend more on welfare. So do the Liberal Democrats, and so does Reform. Only one party here is telling the truth about the welfare bill: the country cannot afford it.
May I urge the right hon. Lady to take up my proposals? Will she stop giving people benefits for common mental health problems such as anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and give them help instead? Will she stop giving personal independence payments to foreign citizens who have not paid into our system and free cars to people who do not need them? Will she stop people scamming the benefits system over the phone and on the internet? Will she keep the two-child benefits cap, and get the benefits bill under control?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that we are on topicals? It is your own Members who are not going to get in.
Liz Kendall
The Conservative party failed on welfare because it failed on work. The reason why we inherited such a dire situation with sickness and disability benefits is that the Conservatives failed to get people into work. We are turning that around, and it is about time the hon. Lady and Opposition Members put forward a proper plan of action that actually gets people into work. We believe in work; it is a pity the Conservative party does not.
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Yes, that is exactly how we are working, and I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Our “Get Britain Working” plan identified Cornwall as a rural industrial legacy employment area, and we specifically pointed out the lack of connectivity. That is why, when it comes to our new jobcentres service, we are also trialling jobcentres on wheels: buses that can take support to where people are and which are designed for rural areas. They recently featured on “The One Show”.
Liz Kendall
We are already extending free school meals to all families on universal credit. We have extended the holiday activities and food programme, so that we feed poor kids not just during school but in the holidays, too. We have introduced a new fair repayment rate in universal credit. We have made the first ever multi-year settlement for the crisis and resilience fund to help struggling families. We are introducing and rolling out breakfast clubs. Our child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn. We are already taking action to tackle poverty and we will do more. I say to the hon. Lady that the Scottish Government need to look at how they are spending the biggest ever funding settlement, given in the spending review, including on employment support, because helping parents into good quality jobs is the long-term key to tackling poverty and inequality.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I was delighted to see the establishment of the disability advisory panel a week or so ago. [Interruption.] I am so sorry, Mr Speaker; I have a cold. How will the advisory panel link with the co-production in the Timms review?
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I gently remind the right hon. Lady that her own party had different rules and different rates for people on existing benefits compared with those on new benefits. That is something the Conservatives did—once again Conservative Members seem to be railing at the very problems that they caused.
I understand why many Members would like to see the results from the Timms review implemented before the four-point change takes effect. However, reviewing the assessment as a whole is a major undertaking that will take time to get right, especially if we co-produce it properly. It will be for those involved in the review to determine the precise timetable, but we are absolutely committed to moving quickly and completing the review by next autumn. I assure the House that any changes following the Timms review will be implemented as soon as is practically possible via primary or secondary legislation. Once we have implemented changes from the review, any existing PIP claimant can ask for a reassessment.
Let us be honest: welfare reform is never easy, especially perhaps for Labour Governments. Our social security system directly touches the lives of millions of people, and it is something that we all care deeply about. We have listened to concerns that have been raised to help us get the changes right. The Bill protects people who are already claiming PIP. It protects, in real terms, the incomes of people already receiving the UC health top-up from that benefit and their standard allowance. It protects those with severe lifelong conditions who will never work, and those near the end of their life, as we promised we would. But I have to tell the House that, unlike the previous Administration, this Government must not and will not duck the big challenges facing this country, because the people we are in politics to serve deserve so much better.
We are taking action to put the social security system on a sustainable footing so that it is there for generations to come. We are helping millions of low-income households across the country, by increasing the standard rate of universal credit. And because we know that there is no route to social justice based on increased benefit spending alone, we are providing record investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, so that they have the same rights and chances to work as anybody else. Our plans will create a fairer society in which people who can work get the help they need, and where we protect those who cannot—a society where the welfare safety net actually survives and is always there for those who need it. Above all, this Government are determined to give people hope that tomorrow will be better than today, with real opportunities for everyone to fulfil their potential and build a better life. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in a moment, but I will be imposing a six-minute limit after his speech.
Welfare Reform
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s welfare reforms.
This Government believe in equality and social justice, and we are determined to build a fairer society in which everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential and achieve their ambitions, no matter where they were born or what their parents did. We know, as all Labour Governments have known, that the only way of unlocking the potential of individuals, and of our country as a whole, is to collectively provide real opportunities and real support.
I am proud of the steps that this Government have already taken to deliver on our promise of a better future for all. [Interruption.] We are creating more good jobs in every part of the country, including through our modern industrial strategy and plans for clean energy. We are—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that the statement has only just started. You might not be interested, but I know my constituents are. I expect the same courtesy when you speak.
Liz Kendall
We are investing in our vital transport infrastructure and in skills, and getting the NHS back on its feet. Our landmark Employment Rights Bill will improve the quality of work, and our increases in the national minimum wage are helping make work pay. But alongside these vital steps, we need to reform the welfare state.
The principles set out in our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper are rooted in values that I know many MPs share: that those who can work must work, but often need proper support to do so; that those who can never work must be protected; and that the welfare state must be fair both for those who need support and for taxpayers, so that it is sustainable for generations to come. But the system we inherited from the Conservative party is failing on all those fronts. It incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. It then writes them off, and denies them any help or support. The result is 2.8 million of our fellow citizens now out of work due to long-term sickness, and almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, which is a staggering one in eight of all our young people. The future sustainability of the system has also been put at risk, with the number of people on personal independence payment set to more than double this decade to over 4 million, with awards increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards every single day.
I know that Government Members have welcomed many aspects of our reforms: our plans to bring in the first ever sustained, above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the first permanent, real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s—which is an historic change in the direction of public policy; the biggest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Tories to £1 billion a year; our plans to ensure that people with severe, lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable anxiety this brings; and our plans to legislate for a right to try, guaranteeing that trying work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment and giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work, which many organisations have called for for years.
However, there have also been real concerns about our initial proposals. We have listened carefully, and we are making positive changes as a result. First and foremost, many Members of the House, alongside disabled people and their organisations, have been very concerned about requiring existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one activity to be eligible for the daily living component of PIP when they are reassessed after November 2026. They have also been concerned that the pace of change was too fast. I fully understand that even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP when the changes come in would be unaffected by the end of this Parliament, this has caused deep and widespread anxiety among existing claimants, because they rely on the income from PIP for so many different aspects of their lives. So we will now ensure that the new four-point requirement will apply only to new claims from November 2026. This means that no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, and existing claimants of passported benefits such as carer’s allowance will continue to get them, too.
Some people have said they are concerned that this will create a two-tier system, but I say to the House, including Conservative Members, that our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support and it is often very hard for people to adjust. For example, some people still receive the severe disablement allowance, which was closed to new claims in 2001. When Labour introduced the local housing allowance in 2008, existing claimants stayed on the old, higher rates of housing benefit, and many people are still on disability living allowance, which PIP replaced in 2013. We believe that protecting existing claimants, while beginning to focus PIP on those with higher needs for new claimants, strikes the right and fair balance.
The second important question raised by Members was about seeing more details of our wider review of the PIP assessment before being asked to vote on the changes in the Bill. Many MPs also want to know that the views and voices of disabled people will be heard at the heart of our plans. So we have today published the terms of reference for our wider PIP review, led by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, to ensure that this vital benefit is fit for the future, taking account of changes in society since it was first introduced. The review will look at the role of the PIP assessment, including activities, descriptors and the associated points, to ensure that they properly capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world. It will be co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts and MPs before reporting to the Secretary of State by autumn next year, and implemented as soon as possible thereafter.
The third issue of concern was that our plans to freeze the universal credit health top-up for existing claimants, and for future claimants with severe lifelong health conditions and those at the end of life, would not protect incomes in real terms, even with the increase in the universal credit standard allowance. I can today confirm that we will ensure, for those groups, the combined value of the universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these benefits in real terms, every year, for the rest of this Parliament. Together, with the changes to our proposals for PIP, that will ensure that no existing claimants are put into poverty as a result of the changes in the Bill.
Finally, while there has been widespread support for the extra investment that we are putting into employment support for sick and disabled people, I know that many Labour Members have been concerned that that is not enough. I can today announce that we are putting an additional £300 million into employment support for sick and disabled people. We will be delivering a total of £600 million for support next year, £800 million the year after and £1 billion in 2028-29, increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8 billion over this Parliament, because disabled people who can work should not wait to have the same rights and chances to work as everybody else. The measures that we are announcing today will cost around £2.5 billion in 2029-30, and the overall savings and costings of our reform package will be certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the normal way at the next fiscal event.
Welfare reform is never easy, but it is essential because there is no route to equality or social justice based on greater benefit spending alone. The path to a fairer society, where everyone can thrive, where people who can work get the support they need and where we protect those who cannot work—that is the path we seek to build with our reforms. Our plans are rooted in fairness for those who need support and for taxpayers. They are about ensuring the welfare state survives, so that there is always a safety net for those who need it and that it lasts for generations to come. Above all, our reforms are rooted in our fundamental belief that everyone can fulfil their potential and live their hopes and dreams if we provide them with the right help and support. This is the better future that we seek to build for our constituents and our country. I commend this statement to the House.
Liz Kendall
I am in listening mode, and I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said: once again, her strategy seems to be to rail against the problems that she and her party created. She has some chutzpah to talk about a two-tier system, when that is precisely what the Conservatives introduced when they protected people on legacy benefits when they moved on to UC and replaced DLA with PIP. They were part of that, and the hon. Lady should admit that rather than making those points. She said we should bring back face-to-face reassessments. We are doing so—it was the Conservatives who switched them off.
To be honest, I am still no clearer about what the Conservatives’ policy actually is. The hon. Lady and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), claim that they had a plan to cut £12 billion from the welfare bill in their manifesto, but the truth is that it was nothing but a vague idea about turning PIP into vouchers. She talks about fit notes—I think the Conservatives tried to reform them about three or four times but completely failed, as have all their other efforts. The one change the Conservatives did propose was to the work capability assessment, and their consultation was ruled illegal by the courts.
What is beyond doubt is the mess that they left our welfare state and country in. Economic inactivity was rising; it is coming down under Labour. Disability benefits were doubling, with the cost to taxpayers soaring. We are putting in place real reforms based on our values—fair for those who need support and for taxpayers. That is the leadership that this country deserves.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement. I absolutely agree that we must reform our social security system; under the previous Government, it neither supported nor protected disabled people. I am also very supportive of the principles that the Government have set out.
May I query some of the points that the Secretary of State has raised, however, particularly about a new PIP assessment process under the PIP review that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be undertaking? The Secretary of State said that the four-point requirement will not apply until November 2026, and that the review will report in November 2026, but surely the PIP review should determine the new process. If this is being truly co-produced with disabled people and their organisations, the review should determine the new process, the new points and the new descriptors. We should not predetermine it as four points now.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I look forward to giving evidence to the Select Committee about our overall proposals. The Bill brings forward a four-point requirement for all new PIP claims after 2026; I have been very clear that that will apply only to new claimants. We are also committed to the wider review of PIP so that it is fit for the future. That will include considering the assessment criteria, the activities, descriptors and associated points to ensure that they properly reflect the impact of disability in today’s world. The review will conclude by autumn 2026, and we will then implement as quickly as possible any changes arising from it.
We have to get the right balance here. I have been a long-standing champion of co-production, including when I was the shadow Minister for social care. We have to do that properly, but the four-point minimum will be in place for new claimants as we look to make changes for the future.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Prime Minister and many Ministers have identified that the benefits system is broken and its cost is skyrocketing, but balancing the books on the backs of the poor is wrong-headed in the extreme. The proposals today are a leap into the dark. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are really concerned that they are rushed proposals. Legislation that is rushed is often wrong, with unintended consequences. As the Member of Parliament for Torbay, I am concerned, as my Liberal Democrat colleagues are, about the disabled and long-term sick, their children, their families and carers.
There are some root causes. Our broken NHS and social care system needs to be resolved so that support is there for those most in need. Our Access to Work scheme is broken and needs resolving as a matter of urgency. There are some real challenges, so I hope that the Secretary of State will give some genuine answers. What consultation has she undertaken with carers? What cost shunting for our care and social needs system has she identified in the proposals? Finally, will she consider withdrawing these proposals so that there is adequate consultation and scrutiny to avoid any bystanders being hit?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we try to speed up questions and answers? No, it is not the Secretary of State’s fault; I am just thinking of the numbers. Everybody wants to make a comment, and I understand why. Johanna Baxter will give us a good example.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, the additional £300 million for employment support and that the PIP review will be co-produced with disabled people and their representatives, but many of my constituents are relying on the Scottish Government for employment support and for getting waiting lists down to help them back into work. Will she outline what discussions she is having with the Scottish Government to address those concerns?
Liz Kendall
I do not expect the hon. Member to have read every line of our manifesto, but reforming the benefit system was in it. So too was our commitment to tackling child poverty, and I am beyond proud that the Chancellor invested the resources we need to extend free school meals to all families on universal credit and lift 100,000 children out of poverty. That is a down payment on our child poverty strategy this autumn.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We all agree that the welfare system needs reform but many of us in this place believe that changes to disability support should not take place without listening to disabled people’s voices and experiences. Over the last few days, I have been hopeful that the Government have shown strength in listening and moving on what they have heard. However, I have a question on sequencing. What is the logic of making changes for future claimants before finishing the Timms review, which is now to be co-produced with disabled people? Could this lead to not just two tiers but three: existing claimants; new claimants, who will lose out; and post Timms review claimants?
Mansion House Accord
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Torsten Bell
I will directly address two questions and then come to the overall tone of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks. There has been a debate across this House and in the wider industry about mandation, including on UK equities. It has been led by Conservative peers in the House of Lords—Baroness Altmann has called for exactly that—and by some Members in this House, including the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on the Conservative Benches. What we are setting out a voluntary agreement led by the industry. On the industry consensus behind the accord, 90% of the defined contribution industry, by active savers, have signed up this morning—and all providers, including those that did not sign up today, are committed to the idea of more investment in private assets.
More generally, the shadow Chancellor’s tone is disappointing. The truth is that he is a lonely figure. There is a wide consensus about the direction of travel to invest more in private assets, as Canadian and Australian pension funds do, and today’s accord is industry led; it sets benchmarks agreed by the industry, and in fact many industry players want to go further. There should be cross-party consensus. At the event this morning, the Chancellor spelt out that this work builds on the work of her predecessor in supporting the 2023 Mansion House compact. The shadow Chancellor will remember that compact because it was signed under a Conservative Government when he was the Work and Pensions Secretary—he was in the press release, championing it. He was right then, and he is letting himself down now.
I have some news: a response to the accord has just come in from Guy Opperman. Hon. Members will remember him, because he was the Conservative former Member for Hexham and the only Pensions Minister in the last Government to last more than five minutes; he was in post for five years. What did he say about this morning’s accord? He said that it is a “good thing” and “should be welcomed”—he is not wrong.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The points about fiduciary duty have been made. Given that fund managers will need time to pool together funds that reflect the Government’s wishes and the voluntary accord, when does the Minister expect it to kick in? At that point, might he consider mandation?
Torsten Bell
The decision by the industry, reflecting the question that the Chair of the Select Committee raises about pace of change, is that the targets for asset allocation are for 2030.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Liberal Democrats cautiously welcome the response from the Minister. Clearly, ensuring that people have a good return on their investments is essential, but we welcome this step change where we are looking at investment within the United Kingdom within the appropriate parameters. Would the Minister unpick for us what core lessons he has learned from Australia and Canada, which have already embarked on this path? Also, it has long been a long-term investment opportunity for many in the pensions industry to invest in rental opportunities. How can we drive the opportunities in the social rented sector through the accord?
Finally, the Minister rightly talks about a pipeline of opportunity. Our fear is that these might only be large opportunities, such as the redevelopment of an airport, when many of our communities are worried by the collapse of our town centres; there could be buckets of opportunity highlighted there, which could be driven by appropriate investment through sources like this.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is working closely with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that the changes work in every part of the country. I also say to Opposition Members that we want to ensure that disabled people in Scotland have the same rights, chances and choices to get into work, stay in work and get on in their work, so I hope the hon. Member will be keen to work with us on those issues, too.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In my constituency, more than 3,000 people are set to lose the lifeline that is PIP. When we look at other elements of the Green Paper, 3.2 million families across the country are set to lose out. Often, those who benefit from PIP are from the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom, and those are set to be hit hardest. Will the Secretary of State advise how the Government are considering the economic impact of the cuts on these communities with high levels of deprivation?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right about the scale of the ambition and the changes that need to be made to deliver on it. Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading the Keep Britain Working review at the moment, looking at what more employers can contribute to those goals. We have committed an extra £1 billion a year for employment support, but we need to get on with the changes we have announced in order to ensure that the costs of PIP in particular are sustainable in the future, as it is very important they should be.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is six weeks since the Government cobbled together an emergency plan for welfare cuts to rescue the Chancellor from the consequences of her job-destroying, economy-shrinking Budget, but we are still waiting for some information. Can the Minister tell the House how many more people will be in work as a result of these measures?
Torsten Bell
We should always learn lessons from Wales. In fact, this Government are already doing that. The roll-out of free breakfast clubs, which is happening across England at the moment, was pioneered in Wales. Children are receiving a free breakfast because of the work done in Wales. I praise my hon. Friend and the entire Work and Pensions Committee for the work that it is doing as part of its inquiry into pensioner poverty. I will be coming to give evidence to the Committee shortly, and I know that its members have been listening not just in Wales but more widely, with events in Glasgow and Manchester as well.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I suspect that the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are now surrounded: I suspect that they are the only people left in this Chamber who are prepared to defend the cutting of the winter fuel payment. Dozens of their own MPs have now joined a long list of people telling the Government that they have got it wrong, including the Welsh First Minister—talking about learning lessons from Wales—the money-saving expert Martin Lewis, and voters up and down this country. The Conservatives have led this campaign from the start, but if the Government will not listen to us, will they now listen to everyone else and think again?
Torsten Bell
We have set out our policy, but here we are 10 months on and I have no idea what the Conservatives’ policy is. I am not even sure that they know what their policy is. For all the shouting, there is no promise to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment. There is one policy from the Leader of the Opposition, the very woman who called for the winter fuel payment to be means-tested in 2022: now, she wants to means-test the entire state pension. Apparently, that is “exactly the sort of thing we will look at”. She thinks that is bold policymaking. It is not—it is bonkers.
Mr Speaker
The good news is that the Minister has no responsibility for the Opposition.
Helen Whately
That is not something that the Leader of the Opposition said. To the point in hand—the winter fuel payment—I wonder for how much longer this tone-deaf final stand will go on. Every time the Government talk about winter fuel payments, they make out that they had no choice, but that is simply not true. To govern is to choose. At best, this policy was only ever going to save £1 billion or so, but they are spending £8 billion on setting up an energy company, and the cost of asylum hotels will rise to £15 billion under Labour. This has always been a choice, and it is the wrong one. Can the Minister guarantee that next winter, every single one of the 750,000 poorest pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment this year will receive it?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
My hon. Friend raises a very important subject. Social security must always be there for those who cannot work. The changes announced recently to the rates of universal credit protect the incomes of those with the most severe lifelong conditions who will never be able to work. We will also guarantee that, for both new and existing claims, those in this group will not need to be reassessed in future. Those are baked into the Green Paper proposals.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The number of job vacancies is falling month on month under this Labour Government, but the number of people employed is also falling. Could the right hon. Lady admit what this means is happening in the economy?
Sir Stephen Timms
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. We will engage stakeholders to consider the scope of the review before publishing terms of reference. In the review we will consider whether the assessment criteria effectively target the right people at the right level. We will look at the descriptors and consider the points allocated to them.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
With 300,000 people set to be plunged into poverty through the proposals in the Green Paper and 700 families set to go deeper into poverty, will the Secretary of State advise how changes to PIP will ensure that people with disabilities are living their best lives?
Liz Kendall
As I said earlier, we are reviewing the PIP assessment process to ensure that it is fit for the future. That starts this week, with stakeholders having been invited in to discuss the scope of the review and its terms of reference. However, it is important to bear in mind that by the end of the Parliament we will still be spending £8 billion more on personal independence payments, and there will be 750,000 more people on PIP than there are now. We are making changes to focus PIP on those in greatest need, while looking at the underlying assessment process to ensure that it is fit for the future, but there will be more spending and more people on PIP by the time of the next election.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she said about resolving the issues with the application process for Access to Work. Will she also kindly reassure disabled people about the future of Access to Work, and that there will not be cuts in the budget for it?
Torsten Bell
The implementation of the McCloud judgment—unfortunately, one of the sad consequences of botched reform under the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government before 2015—is important, and we need to take it seriously. If there are specific cases, please do write to me about them. I am aware of the issue about making sure that scheme members get the details from the NHS pension scheme, and we are working together closely to make sure members get those letters as soon as possible.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Some of the most vulnerable people in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency have profound anxieties about what the changes to personal independence payment eligibility criteria will mean for them. What steps is the Minister taking to communicate to people who will never be able to work again that the new process will not subject them to unnecessary and degrading assessments?
PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we have to do that. Five years ago, we were spending £12 billion on personal independence payment, and this year, in current prices, we will spend £22 billion. The Government have to address that, precisely as he says, in order to ensure that this crucial safety net is there for the long term. We will not be means-testing it, freezing it or converting it into vouchers, as the Conservative party suggested; we want it to be a cash benefit that can meet the needs of those who depend on it.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on bringing this important matter before the House. In government, my party supported carers: we increased carer’s allowance by £1,500 and, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, introduced carer’s leave. We are united again today in dismay at what this Government are doing.
The Government had 14 years to prepare their welfare reforms. We had nothing for eight months, and then everything in a rush, because the Chancellor crashed the economy. With growth this year cut in half, inflation rising further, unemployment up, productivity down, debt interest soaring, a record tax burden and 200,000 people being pushed into absolute poverty by the measures taken by this Government, they have had an emergency Budget containing cuts to benefits for disabled people. Perhaps if they were not in such a rush, they would have realised that these crude reforms also impact carers. Some 150,000 people who gave up income to look after a loved one, and who rely on carer’s allowance to make ends meet, are now going to lose it.
The Government are balancing the books on the backs of the people least able to take the weight. That is Labour: making other people pay for the fiasco of their Budget. First they came for the farmers, then for the pensioners, and now it is the carers—the most important people in our society, doing the most important job a human being can do, not for the money but for the love. The least the Government can do is to give them our support. That is what we did in government, so why will they not?
Can the Minister confirm whether carer’s allowance was a deliberate target of the Government’s reforms, or did they not realise the impact of what they were doing to PIP because of the rush they were in? Do they think that taking £500 million from carers while giving above-inflation pay awards to the trade unions is the right priority, and does the Minister share the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s view that cutting support for carers and disabled people is like taking pocket money from children? Is that what he believes carer’s allowance is—pocket money?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I grew up caring for two disabled parents. As I said in my maiden speech, I would not be here if it was not for the sacrifices they made when they had so little in the first place. I have seen both my mother and my father forced out of work by their poor health. I have seen their mental health suffer, because they could not get a foot in the door of the NHS. I have seen the consequences in our family home; they suffered significant bouts of depression. I know the dignity and importance of work to people who want to and can work. When my parents’ health got worse, they could not work, so I know the importance of protections for people like them. I am pleased that the Government are emphasising both parts of the issue. Will the Minister please assure my constituents, who are concerned because of the leak, into which an official inquiry is under way, that the Government are truly listening to our constituents? Will he give the assurance that, through the pathways to work consultation, the Government want to hear from disability groups in my constituency, including the Cambian Wing college, whose representatives I met on Monday, and other organisations? Will he also reassure the public that the Government are committed to closing the disability employability gap? We need employers to support people into work, too.
Mr Speaker
I understand that this is a very important urgent question—that is why it was granted—but I need to try to get everybody in; that is what I am bothered about. If we can speed up questions and answers, that would help us all.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his experience to this debate. I can absolutely give him the reassurance he seeks.
Welfare Reform
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are ambitious for our people and our country. We believe that unleashing the talents of the British people is the key to our future success. But the social security system that we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people that it is supposed to help and is holding our country back.
The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—one in eight of all our young people. Some 2.8 million are out of work due to long-term sickness, and the number of people claiming personal independence payments is set to double this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million, with the growth in claims rising faster among young people and those with mental health conditions. Claims are up to four times higher in parts of the midlands, Wales and the north where economic demand is weakest. These places were decimated in the ’80s and ’90s, written off for years by successive Tory Governments and never given the chances that they deserved.
The consequences of that failure are there for all to see. Millions of people who could work are trapped on benefits, denied the income, hope, dignity and self-respect that we know that good work brings. Taxpayers are paying millions more for the cost of failure, with spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits up £20 billion since the pandemic, and set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year. It is not like this in most other comparable countries, where spending on these benefits since the pandemic is either stable or falling, while ours continues to inexorably rise. That is the legacy of 14 years of Tory failure.
Today, we say, “No more”. Since we were elected we have hit the ground running to get more people into good work through our plan for change. We are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS to drive down waiting lists and get people back to health and back to work.
We are improving the quality of work and making work pay with our landmark employment rights legislation and increases in the national living wage; we are creating more good jobs in every part of the country in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy; and we are introducing the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, with our £240 million Get Britain Working plan. Today, our pathways to work Green Paper sets out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system, creating a more proactive, pro-work system for those who can work and so protecting those who cannot work, now and for the long term.
As a constituency MP for 14 years, I know that there will always be people who can never work because of the severity of their disability or illness. Under this Government, the social security system will always be there for people in genuine need. That is a principle we will never compromise on. Disabled people and people with health conditions who can work, however, should have the same rights, choices and chances to work as everybody else. That principle of equality is vital too, because, far from what Conservative Members would have us believe, many sick and disabled people want to work, with the right help and support. Unlike the Conservatives, that is what we will deliver.
Our first aim is to secure a decisive shift towards prevention and early intervention. Almost 4 million people are in work with a work-limiting health condition and around 300,000 fall out of work every year. We have to do far more to help people stay in work and get back to work quickly, because their chances of returning are five times higher in the first year. Our plans to give statutory sick pay to 1 million of the lowest-paid workers and provide more rights to flexible working will help keep more people in work. The WorkWell programme is trialling new approaches, such as GPs referring people to employment advisers instead of signing them off sick. Our Keep Britain Working review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, will set out what Government and employers can do together to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces. We will therefore help more employers to offer opportunities for disabled people, including through measures such as reasonable readjustments, alongside our Green Paper consultation on reforming Access to Work so it is fit for the future.
Today, I can announce another step. Our Green Paper will consult on a major reform of contributory benefits, merging contributions-based jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance paid at a higher rate, without someone having to prove that they cannot work in order to get it. Therefore, if someone has paid into the system, they will get stronger income protection while we help them get back on track.
Our second objective is to restore trust and fairness in the benefits system by fixing the broken assessment process and tackling the perverse incentives that drive people into welfare dependency. Labour Members have long argued that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. Going through the WCA is complex, time-consuming and often stressful for claimants, especially if they also have to go through the PIP assessment. More fundamentally, it is based on a binary can-or-cannot-work divide, when we know that the truth is that many people’s physical and mental health conditions fluctuate. The consultation on the Conservatives’ discredited WCA proposals was ruled unlawful by the courts. I can therefore announce today that we will not go ahead with their proposals. Instead, we will scrap the WCA in 2028.
In future, extra financial support for health conditions in universal credit will be available solely through the PIP assessment. Extra income is therefore based on the impact of someone’s health condition or disability and not on their capacity to work, reducing the number of assessments that people have to go through and providing a vital step towards derisking work. And we will do more, by legislating for a right to try, guaranteeing that work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment and giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work without the fear that that will put their benefits at risk.
We will also tackle the perverse financial incentives that the Tories created, which actively encourage people into welfare dependency. They ran down the value of the universal credit standard allowance. As a result, the health top-up is now worth double the standard allowance, at more than £400 a month. In 2017, they took away extra financial help for the group of people who could prepare for work, so we are left with a binary assessment of whether people can or cannot work, and there is a clear financial incentive for someone to define themselves as incapable of work—a factor the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others say is likely to be driving people on to incapacity benefits. Today, we tackle this problem head-on.
We will legislate to rebalance the payments in universal credit from April next year, fixing the value of the health top-up in cash terms for existing claimants and reducing it for new claimants, with an additional premium for people with severe, lifelong conditions that mean they will never work, to give them the financial security they deserve. Alongside that, we will bring in a permanent, above-inflation rise to the standard allowance in universal credit for the first time ever. This means a £775 annual increase in cash terms by 2029-30, and it is a decisive step to tackle the perverse incentives in the system.
We will also fix the failing system of reassessments. The Conservatives failed to switch reassessments back on after the pandemic, so they are now down by more than two thirds, and face-to-face assessments have gone from seven in 10 to only one in 10. We will turn these reassessments back on at scale, shift the focus back to doing more face-to-face, and ensure that they are recorded as standard, to give confidence to claimants and taxpayers that they are being done properly.
I can also announce that, for people on universal credit with the most severe disabilities and health conditions that will never improve, we want to ensure that they are never reassessed, in order to give them the confidence and dignity they deserve. We will also fundamentally overhaul the Department for Work and Pensions’ safeguarding approach to make sure that all our processes and training are of the highest quality, so that we protect and support the most vulnerable people.
Alongside these changes we will also reform disability benefits so that they focus support on those in greatest need and ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term into the future. Social and demographic change means that more people are now living with a disability, but the increase in disability benefits is double the rate of increasing prevalence of working-age disability in the country: claims among young people are up 150%; claims for mental health conditions are up 190%; and claims for learning difficulties are up by over 400%, according to the IFS. Every day there are more than 1,000 new PIP awards. That is the equivalent of adding a population the size of Leicester every single year.
That is not sustainable in the long term, above all for the people who depend on that support, but the Tories had no proper plan to deal with it—just yet more ill-thought-through consultations. So today I can announce that this Government will not bring in the Tory proposals for vouchers, because disabled people should have choice and control over their lives. We will not means-test PIP, because disabled people deserve extra support, whatever their incomes, and I can confirm that we will not freeze PIP either. Instead, our reforms will focus support on those with the greatest needs. We will legislate for a change in PIP so that people will need to score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify for the daily living element of PIP from November 2026. That will not affect the mobility component of PIP and relates only to the daily living element.
Alongside that, we will launch a review of the PIP assessment, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, in close consultation with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts, so that we can ensure that PIP and the assessment process are fit for purpose now and into the future. This significant reform package is expected to save over £5 billion in 2029-30; the OBR will set out its final assessment of the costings next week.
Our third and final objective is to deliver personalised support to sick and disabled people who can work so that they can get the jobs they need and deserve. We know from the last Labour Government’s new deal for disabled people, young people and the long-term unemployed the difference that proper employment support can make. More recent evidence from the Work Choice programme and additional work coach time shows that support can make a significant difference in the number of people getting and keeping work and improving their mental health and wellbeing.
This Labour Government believe that an active state can transform people’s lives. We know that because we have done it before. Today I can announce that we will invest an additional £1 billion a year in employment support, with the aim of guaranteeing high-quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work—the largest ever investment in opportunities to work for sick and disabled people. Alongside that, for those on the UC health top-up, we will bring in an expectation to engage and a new support conversation to talk about people’s goals and aspirations, combined with an offer of personalised health, skills and employment support.
We will go further, because being out of work or training is so damaging for young people’s future prospects. In addition to funding our youth guarantee through the £240 million Get Britain Working plan, we will consult on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until someone is aged 22, reinvesting the savings into work support and training opportunities, so that every young person is earning or learning and on a pathway to success.
The Conservatives left a broken benefits system that is failing the people who depend on it and our country as a whole. The status quo is unacceptable, but it is not inevitable. We were elected on a mandate for change to end the sticking-plaster approach and tackle the root causes of problems in this country, which have been ignored for too long. We believe in the value and potential of every single person: we all have something positive to contribute and can make a difference, whether that is in paid work, in our families or in our communities alongside our neighbours and friends. We will unleash potential in every corner of the land, because we are as ambitious for the British people as they are for themselves. Today we take decisive action, and I commend this statement to the House.
Liz Kendall
I personally like the hon. Lady a great deal, but her entire response seemed to be railing against her own party’s failings and lamenting action that her party failed to take. “Too little, too late,” will indeed be the epitaph of the Conservative party. One thing on which I agree with her that this is a now-or-never moment, and I am proud that this Government are taking it. We are taking decisive action, ducking the challenges that have been ignored for too long.
I am not interested in being tough. This is about real people with real lives, and we must be careful in how we talk about it. I am interested in taking the right steps to change the system in order to transform people’s lives and, crucially, ensure that we have a social security system that lasts. One in three of us will have a health condition in our lifetime, and one in four is disabled. Unless the country, the welfare state, the world of work and all our public services wake up to that fact, the welfare state that the Labour party created will not be there for future generations. That is what we are determined to secure. This is a substantial package of measures that will save around £5 billion by 2029-30. We will have to wait until the OBR comes up with its final costings on all this at the spring statement.
I leave hon. Members with this: a decade ago, former Chancellor George Osborne said:
“Governments…let…unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they’d never work again. Why? Because people on disability benefits don’t get counted in unemployment figures that could embarrass politicians.”
The Labour party is not embarrassed about this situation; we are ashamed of the state the Tories left the country in. We will face up to our responsibilities; it is time that Conservative Members did the same.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I absolutely agree: our social security system is not fit for purpose. The measures, particularly those to increase employment support by £1 billion a year and to increase the standard allowance of universal credit, which the Opposition failed to do in government, will be positively felt.
I appreciate the difficult financial circumstances that we face. Despite the Opposition’s assertion that £5 billion is not a huge figure, this is the largest cut in social security support since 2015. There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people. I absolutely and fundamentally believe that my right hon. Friend is on the right course, but I implore my party to try to bed in our reforms before we make the cuts, as others have asked.
There is so much evidence of the adverse effects that the Conservative party had through cuts to support and restrictions to eligibility criteria when it was in government, including the deaths of vulnerable people. That cannot be repeated. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend published as a matter of urgency the Government’s analysis of the impacts, particularly mental health impacts, and outlined when we are expected to respond.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. We will publish the equality and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I know that she is a lifelong champion of sick and disabled people, and she has rightly raised concerns, including through the Select Committee, of vital issues such as safeguarding. I look forward to receiving the Select Committee’s report on that in order to learn from the evidence that it received. Although this is a substantial package with those estimated savings, spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits will continue to rise over this Parliament. The last forecast was that they would continue to rise by £18 billion. As she says, these are important issues, and we need to work to get this right to ensure that proper support is in place for people. I genuinely look forward to working with the Select Committee to get all these proposals right.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing her statement in advance—that was extremely welcome.
The Liberal Democrats want to see more people in work, including those with disabilities. Sadly, the significant blocker to those people getting into work is the appalling state of the health and social care system left behind by the Tories—to my mind, in more ways than one. We desperately need the new Labour Government to drive forward with reforms to invest in and improve our health service.
The devil is in the detail of these proposals. I fear what we will find as we turn over rocks over the next few days, particularly for the most vulnerable. The Secretary of State has described the system as broken, so how will she drive significant change through the measures? I fear that this is just tinkering around the edges when we need real culture change within the DWP and investment in our NHS. That is absolutely essential.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating TOC; it sounds like it is doing fantastic work. On Friday, I was talking to the headteacher of a special needs school near my constituency, who was saying we absolutely have to ensure that work experience, careers advice and working with voluntary groups are all part of the package of support we put in place. If possible, I or one of my colleagues will certainly come and see the work that TOC is doing, because charities and voluntary groups are absolutely critical to this Government’s plans.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Back in the autumn, the right hon. Lady said
“we will not allow young people not to be in education, employment or training.”
How is it possible then that since Labour has been in office there are 100,000 more young people in exactly that situation?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am concerned about the level of anxiety and speculation that has been around over recent weeks. I am sad that that has happened and that people have been concerned, but the current welfare system is failing the very people it is supposed to help—the people it is there for. Our aim is to make the system sustainable so that it will be there for people now and in the future. When the hon. Lady sees the proposals, I think she will see how we will deliver on that commitment.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be an analysis alongside the Green Paper on the impacts it will have on poverty, employment and health?
Alison McGovern
Through my hon. Friend, I give my thanks to everybody at Harlow jobcentre, because it sounds like they have their shoulders to the wheel in getting job opportunities for people who need them. When we arrived in the Department, we uncovered that there was not nearly a good enough relationship between the Department and employers. That is why we put a new strategy in place to do the basics well: there is a single point of contact and we are making sure that there is on-the-job training that is tailored to specific employers. We will be doing more to promote change in that area, but I thank everyone in Harlow for the efforts they are making.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
There continue to be unacceptable delays in processing Access to Work applications, both for my constituents in Torbay and across the country. This leads to fears among disabled people that job offers will be withdrawn by their would-be employers. What reassurance can the Minister give the Chamber that the Government have plans afoot to tackle that backlog?
Torsten Bell
We are already doing a lot to simplify the process; it now takes 16 minutes on average to complete an online form, and 90% of people apply online or over the phone. However, the hon. Lady is completely right to highlight the fact that we must do more, including by simplifying the form. We continue to keep that under review, and I am always interested in ideas about how we can go further.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
When the Government scrapped universal entitlement to the winter fuel payment, they said that all 880,000 people eligible for it would get it through pension credit. We now know that that did not happen; they have got fewer than 120,000 new pensioners enrolled. More than three quarters of a million of the poorest pensioners have missed out on vital support this winter, so will the Minister tell us whether that was the plan all along—to save money at the expense of the poorest pensioners—or will he admit that he has completely failed in his duty towards the poorest elderly people in our society?
Liz Kendall
I welcome the work that Crumbs is doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I want to ensure not only that we overhaul our jobcentres, have a new youth guarantee, and join up work, health and skills support through our “Get Britain Working” plan; but, crucially, that our jobcentres and others work closely with organisations such as Crumbs, because only by working together will we get the right support to help people on the pathway to work and to success.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
We heard yesterday that the Cabinet had not yet seen the welfare plan that the right hon. Lady is apparently due to announce tomorrow. Given all the media briefings, the apprehension of disabled people and the growing number of people not working, none of us would want to see that delayed. Can she assure us that she has got collective agreement so that she can announce her plan here in this Chamber tomorrow?
Liz Kendall
We will never get this country growing again unless we provide good jobs, hope and opportunity in every part of the country, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. He knows that his region has one of the highest levels of people not in education, employment or training. Our youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning, and I look forward to working with him to deliver that on the ground.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that those people in receipt of disability benefits who profoundly cannot work will not face a cut in their benefits?
Liz Kendall
There will be no greater representative for her constituents than my hon. Friend, who rightly said that they want the right chances, choices and support to work, as anyone else does. That is why we are creating good jobs in every part of the country through our modern industrial strategy. We are improving the quality of work and making work pay through our Employment Rights Bill. Our get Britain working plan will give the work, skills and—
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is right that the welfare system supports those with disabilities. However, does the Secretary of State agree that social media influencers who are teaching people to game the Motability system in order to get free vehicles is a disgrace? If so, what does she intend to do about it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
I encourage all pensioners to consider whether they are eligible for pension credit, but also to look for the wider support that can be provided via the household support fund and the warm homes discount. I say gently to the hon. Member that the driving up of council tax bills is a direct result of the destruction of local government finances by the Conservative party over 14 years.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place. I have a simple question for him: how many people are still waiting for their winter fuel payment?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much hope that people in Eastbourne will continue to get the support that, by the sound of it, has done a very good job for a very long time. I obviously do not know the details of this case, but it is important that we not only maintain but improve support for disabled people.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the “Keep Britain Working” review but, according to last year’s DWP accounts, £4.2 billion of benefits were underpaid to claimants, and the claimants most affected were disabled people. What will the Government do to ensure that disabled people who may not be able to work get the money to which they are entitled?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The media report that people in No. 10 are tearing their hair out in frustration at the DWP taking so long to come up with welfare reforms. We have already been waiting seven months, and now we are told it will be March before there is a Green Paper, and presumably there will be no actual legislation until the end of the year at the earliest—they will be totally bald in No. 10 by then! Given the constant rise in the welfare bill, what is the financial cost so far of Labour’s inactivity?
Alison McGovern
As I have said several times, we are working quickly to bring forward the detail of that plan. In fact, only last week we had a parliamentary engagement session so that colleagues across the House could be brought up to speed on the detail of that work. I sat on the Opposition Benches and watched for 14 years as the Conservatives put our children into poverty. We will waste no time in dealing with this problem.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Children in poverty in Torbay make up 23% of our population but 100% of our future. Barnardo’s recently highlighted that the most powerful tool in the Government’s toolbox to tackle child poverty is ending the two-child cap. Only last week, the annual poverty report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation came to the same conclusion. When will the Minister come to that same conclusion and end the two-child cap?
Liz Kendall
I would love to visit. That is an important programme focused on keeping people in work and getting those who have recently left back into work as soon as possible. In my hon. Friend’s area, WorkWell provides advice on workplace adjustments, access to physiotherapy, and employment advice and counselling, and is working closely with the voluntary sector and employers, backed by £2 million-worth of funding. That is critical because, with more than 15,000 economically inactive people in his constituency, we must start turning that situation around.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Last week, the right hon. Lady described herself as the HR manager for the Government’s growth plan, so can Liz from HR tell me which of her colleagues should be fired for the addition of 47,000 people to the unemployment figures in December?
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I am so pleased to hear about that work in Bracknell Forest. That is why the fourth part of our child poverty strategy is about local support. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his constituents to ensure that strategy is a success.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I was pleased to hear that Labour councillors on Hull city council have voted to condemn the Government’s shameful decision not to compensate WASPI women. Has that given the Minister pause for thought?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have launched the “Keep Britain Working” review led by Charlie Mayfield, the former chair of John Lewis Partnership. He is doing precisely that—looking at how we can better support employers to help keep people in work and get them back to work. Mental health is a real concern for me, with so many young people not in education, employment or training, primarily driven by mental health problems. This is an issue we have got to sort, because it is terrible for them and for their future, and terrible for the economy too.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
We keep these matters under review. I have not looked at that particular proposal before, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line I will certainly give it a careful look.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud the Front-Bench team for its energy in driving the child poverty taskforce, but every decision has consequences and costs. Will the Minister outline the costs of some of the processes she is looking at changing, particularly the cost of lifting the two-child cap, and if she does not have the figure to hand will she write to me?
Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s.
The state pension is the foundation for a secure retirement. That is why this Government are committed to the pensions triple lock, which will increase the new state pension by more than £470 a year from this April and deliver an additional £31 billion of spending over the course of this Parliament, and it is why Governments of all colours have a responsibility to ensure that changes to the state pension age are properly communicated so that people can plan for their retirement.
Before I turn to the Government’s response to the ombudsman’s report, I want to be clear about what this report investigated, and what it did not. The report is not an investigation into the actual decision to increase the state pension age for women in 1995 or to accelerate that increase in 2011—a decision that the then Conservative Chancellor George Osborne said
“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”.
That comment understandably angered many women and sparked the original Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The ombudsman is clear that policy decisions to increase the state pension age in 1995 and since were taken by Parliament and considered lawful by the courts. This investigation was about how changes in the state pension age were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the impact this may have had on the ability of women born in the 1950s to plan for their retirement.
I know that this is an issue of huge concern to many women that has spanned multiple Parliaments. Like so many other problems that we have inherited from the Conservatives, this is something that the previous Government should have dealt with. Instead, they kicked the can down the road and left us to pick up the pieces, but today we deal with it head-on. The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and I have given the ombudsman’s report serious consideration and looked in detail at the findings, and at information and advice provided by the Department that was not available to us before coming into Government.
The then ombudsman looked at six cases. He found that the Department provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004, including through leaflets and pensions education campaigns and on its website. However, decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s. The ombudsman says that these delays did not result in the women suffering direct financial loss but that they were maladministration.
We accept that the 28-month delay in sending out letters was maladministration, and on behalf of the Government, I apologise. This Government are determined to learn all the lessons from what went wrong, and I will say more about that in a moment. We also agree that the women suffered no direct financial loss because of the maladministration. However, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy, and I want to spell out why.
First, the report does not properly take into account research showing that there was actually considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, but it does not sufficiently recognise evidence from the same research that 73% of women aged 45 to 54—the very group that covers women born in the 1950s—were aware that the state pension age was increasing, or research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.
Secondly, the report says that if letters had been sent out earlier, it would have affected what women knew about the state pension age. However, we do not agree that sending letters earlier would have had the impact that the ombudsman says. Research given to the ombudsman shows that only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving them or reading them, so we cannot accept that, in the great majority of cases, sending a letter earlier would have affected whether women knew that their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunity to make informed decisions.
These two facts—that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says—as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman’s report.
The ombudsman says that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. However, the report itself acknowledges that assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s would have a significant cost and administrative burden. It has taken the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate the circumstances of six sample complaints. For the DWP to set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take thousands of staff years to process.
Even if there were a scheme in which women could self-certify that they were not aware of changes to their state pension age and that they had suffered as a result, it would be impossible to verify the information provided. The alternative put forward in the report is a flat-rate compensation scheme at level 4 of the ombudsman’s scale of injustice. This would provide £1,000 to £2,950 per person, at a total cost of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion.
Given that the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, not least when the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for any compensation scheme and left us a £22 billion black hole in the public finances.
This has been an extremely difficult decision to take, but we believe it is the right course of action, and we are determined to learn all the lessons to ensure that this type of maladministration never happens again. First, we want to work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan out of the report, so that every and all lessons are learned. Secondly, we are committed to setting clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age, so that people can properly plan for their retirement. Thirdly, I have tasked officials to develop a strategy for effective, timely and modern communication on the state pension that uses the most up-to-date methods, building on changes that have already been made, such as the online “check your state pension” service that gives a personal forecast of a person’s state pension, including when they can take it, because one size rarely fits all.
As I said, we have not taken this decision lightly, but we believe it is the right decision because the great majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, because sending letters earlier would not have made a difference for most, and because the proposed compensation scheme is not fair or value for taxpayers’ money.
I know there are women born in the 1950s who want and deserve a better life. They have worked hard in paid jobs and in bringing up their families. Many are struggling financially with the cost of living and fewer savings to fall back on. They worry about their health and how their children and grandchildren will get on.
To those women I say: this Government will protect the pensions triple lock, so your state pension will increase by up to £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament; we will drive down waiting lists, so you get the treatment you need, with an extra £22 billion of funding for the NHS this year and next; and we will deliver the jobs, homes and opportunities your families need to build a better life. I know that many 1950s-born women will be disappointed about this specific decision, but we believe it is the right decision and the fair decision. I commend this statement to the House.
Liz Kendall
I can assure my hon. Friend’s constituents in Clwyd North that we want to learn all the lessons from the maladministration that we accept took place. We have to get people timely, effective and personal communication, and not just about their state pension age but about all aspects of pensions, so that they can properly plan for their retirement. The Pensions Minister and I will go through that with a fine-toothed comb to do everything possible to make sure it does not happen again.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
First, and for the record, the Liberal Democrats played a significant part in government in introducing the triple lock for our pensioners—it is important that people acknowledge that.
The Government’s decision is nothing short of a betrayal of WASPI women. I know that, as in my constituency of Torbay, across the United Kingdom there will be millions of women who are shocked and horrified at that decision. That the Government have inherited an awful state for our economy is no excuse. That the women are being hit by the mistakes of the Tories and that the Labour Government are now using that as a shield is utterly wrong-headed. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the decision?
The matter went to the ombudsman for its considered review, and the Liberal Democrats have long supported the ombudsman’s findings. I am shocked that the Government are taking a pick-and-mix approach to those findings, and we therefore ask the Secretary of State to seriously reconsider the decision.