Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Liz Kendall Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the broken benefits system that we inherited from the Conservatives and deliver a better life for millions of people across our country. Our plans are rooted in principles and values that I know many in this House share: compassion for those who need our help most, a belief in equality and social justice, that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential no matter where they are born or what their parents did, and responsibility for our constituents and our country as a whole, so that we ensure the welfare state is sustainable and lasts for generations to come. But the system we inherited is failing on all those counts.

Conservative Members left us with a system that incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. They then wrote people off without any help or support, then blamed them to grab a cheap headline. The result is 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and one in eight of all our young people not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings for their future job prospects, earnings and health. The number of people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade, with awards for personal independence payments increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards a day—the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Liz Kendall]

Let me make some progress.

I do not believe that this is sustainable if we want a welfare state for generations to come that protects people who most need our help. There is nothing compassionate about leaving millions of people who could work without the help they need to build a better life. There is no route to equality or social justice when 9 million of our fellow citizens are out of work and not looking for work, and when our country has one of the widest disability employment gaps in Europe. There is no responsibility in leaving our system of social security to continue as is and risk support for it becoming so frayed that it is no longer there to provide a safety net for those who can never work and who most need our help and support. This Bill, alongside our wider reforms, will help people who can work to do so, protect those who cannot, and begin to get the benefits bill on a more sustainable footing.

Labour’s historic mission is to get more people into good jobs because we know the value of good work, not only as the best route out of poverty and to raise living standards, but because good work brings a sense of purpose, pride and dignity and because there is such clear evidence that good work is good for physical and mental health.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is absolutely right that any Government that take office should aim to reduce poverty in this country. Why then do her own Government’s figures show that the actions she is taking this afternoon will put an extra 150,000 people into poverty? Does she really think that is what her Back Benchers expected when they were elected to government last year?

[Liz Kendall]

That is what they call chutzpah, seeing as Conservative Members put an extra 900,000 children into poverty. This Government are determined to tackle child poverty and will take 100,000 children out of poverty through our plans to extend free school meals to every household on universal credit—a downpayment on our child poverty strategy in the autumn.

I am proud that at the spending review—alongside billions of extra investment to create good jobs in every part of the country, to invest in transport infrastructure and in skills so people can get those jobs, and to drive down NHS waiting lists so people can get back to health and back to work—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the biggest-ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservatives to £1 billion a year.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the improvements she has made to the Bill, which are extremely reassuring for my constituents, 9,000 of whom are on personal independence payments and are now reassured. Some, however, are concerned about the number of adults who could be put into poverty, following the publication of the impact assessment yesterday. I recognise that these figures do not take into consideration the impact of the planned record investment in employment support. Will she publish further assessments that provide a more accurate view?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those figures do not take into account the employment impact from the investment we are putting in. We have produced extremely clear evidence that good employment support works, including Work Choice—a Labour programme ended by the Tories—which meant that 40% more disabled people were in work eight years later. We will, indeed, publish further updated impact assessments before Committee stage, spelling this out in more detail.

[Jim Shannon]

I have been asked by representatives of people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis to put this question to the Secretary of State, and I hope she will give me the answer. They are worried that people with these fluctuating conditions will be locked out of qualifying for the higher rate of the UC health element, as a functional limitation must “constantly” apply for a claimant to meet the severe conditions criteria. Will she commit to add an explicit reference to the Bill to ensure that those with fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson’s and MS are not locked out of the higher rate? It is really important for those people.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Members have asked whether people with fluctuating conditions will meet the severe conditions criteria, which are for those with lifelong conditions that will never improve and mean they can never work. It is the case that, as someone’s condition progresses, if they change and meet those severe conditions criteria, they will be protected. One of the reasons for the Timms review, which I will come on to, is precisely to make sure this vital benefit recognises the impact of fluctuating conditions on people’s lives. That is crucial to make sure this benefit is fit for the future.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Liz Kendall]

I will make a tiny bit of progress, and then I will give way.

As I set out to the House yesterday, we have listened carefully to concerns that there would not be enough employment support in place quickly enough by the time the benefit changes come in. We are bringing forward an additional £300 million of employment support for sick and disabled people, delivering a total of £600 million 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—to ensure that anyone who is affected by this Bill will be offered personalised work, health and skills support, including access to a specially trained adviser by the time the legislation comes in.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?

[Liz Kendall]

Joining up work and health support is essential. I have been to visit some of the projects in place, and they are making a really big difference. We are building on that with additional investment, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservative party. Joining up work and health support is very important, because good health and good work are two sides of the same coin, but this needs to be available widely across the country.

Let me turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 begin to tackle the perverse incentives left by the Conservative party, which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work by rebalancing the universal credit standard allowance and health top-up. I am very proud that we are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s. Some 6.7 million households—the lowest-income households—will benefit from the increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and it will deliver a £725-a-year increase in cash terms by 2029-30 for a single person aged 25 and over.

Having listened seriously to concerns about our original proposals on the UC health top-up for existing claimants and future claimants with severe conditions and those at the end of their lives, we will ensure that for these groups, the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these vital benefits in real terms every year for the rest of the Parliament.

Alongside those changes, schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable stress and anxiety this brings, so that they have the dignity and security they deserve. Yesterday we published draft regulations on our new right to try, which will guarantee that, in and of itself, work will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to try work—something many people have called for for years.

I turn to clause 5 of the Bill, on personal independence payments. Yesterday I told the House that we have listened to the concerns raised by many Members, disabled people and their organisations about the impact of the new requirement for existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component. Even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point these changes come in would be unaffected by the end of the Parliament, I know this has caused deep and widespread anxiety and stress, so we have changed our original proposals. The new four-point eligibility requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026. This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this Bill, and anyone who currently receives any passported benefits, such as carer’s allowance, will also be unaffected by this change.

[Mr Betts]

The changes to PIP, as far as they go, are very welcome, as is the review to be conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, which will be co-produced with disability groups, as I understand it. However, the Government have committed to make changes in November 2026, when that review may not have been completed. Would it not be far more logical to have the review, bring it to this House for agreement and then make the changes after that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I will come on to this point in a moment, but the purpose of the PIP review is to have a wider look at the assessment. It has not been looked at for over a decade since it came in. I understand the sequencing point, and I will come to that in a moment. It is extremely important to have a very clear message that existing PIP claimants will now be unaffected by the changes in the Bill.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact she has listened this week, but she knows that many disabled people watching our proceedings today will remain very worried. She is absolutely right that the existing system is not working. Can she say more about the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review and about how we can rebuild the confidence of disabled groups and the people who are worried, because every welfare reform seems to have been bad for them, in the fact that we can have a system that assesses who really needs it?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I will come on to say a little more about that in a moment. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts and MPs, because we must ensure that we get this right. I have been a long-standing champion of co-production, including when I was the shadow Minister responsible for social care. I think we get the best decisions when we work closely with people.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Liz Kendall]

Let me say a bit more, because many hon. Friends raised these issues, including yesterday. We believe that protecting existing claimants, while ensuring that new PIP awards are focused on those with higher needs, strikes the right and fair balance going forward. I want to address some of the questions raised yesterday by Labour Members about the sequencing of the PIP changes, and the wider review of the PIP assessment that is being led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Liz Kendall]

I will make progress on this point.

No existing PIP claimant will be affected by changes in the Bill. They will also be reassessed under the existing rules whenever they have an award review. From November 2026, new claimants will be assessed under the four-point criteria. The purpose of the Timms review is to look at the PIP assessment as a whole, and ensure that it is fair and fit for the future. It therefore takes account of the huge changes in society, the world of work, and the nature of health conditions and disability since the benefit was first introduced more than a decade ago.

[Esther McVey]

rose—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I welcome the improvements made to the Bill so far, but I think we still need more details about the co-productive element of the Timms review. Will she confirm that the review will guarantee that disabled people and their organisations are the key voice in developing this policy? Will the review change and revolutionise the view in Whitehall, so that future policies that impact disabled people will always have their voices central to the discussion?

[Liz Kendall]

I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend about that. Many hon. Members have asked for precise details about how this process will work, and it is extremely important for us—we are beginning the process—to discuss this with disabled people, their organisations and other experts. It is not for me—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) would let me finish my sentence I will, of course, give way. It is important that we do not come up with—it would be completely wrong if we in Whitehall came up with a process and imposed it on other people. We have to do this properly.

[Esther McVey]

Have the Government taken legal advice as to whether it is lawful to treat people with the same conditions, disabilities and circumstances differently within the benefits system? It is morally unacceptable, but does the Secretary of State believe that it is lawful?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Welfare Reform

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

The Government have committed to making two changes to strengthen the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill: implementing the new eligibility requirements for PIP from November 2026 for new claims only, and adjusting universal credit rates to make sure all existing recipients of the universal credit health element—and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria and those who qualify under special rules for end of life—have the combined rate of their universal credit standard allowance and universal credit health element protected in real terms.

Today, we have circulated policy explainers for the amendments that the Government will table ahead of Committee Stage to enact the proposed change to PIP and UC, demonstrating our commitment to strengthening the Bill.

These explainers have been circulated alongside a full draft of the amendment to the PIP clauses. This letter has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses for reference. We will formally table the amendments to both UC and PIP following the Bill’s Second Reading.

We have also published the revised poverty impacts, “Spring statement social security changes—updated impact on poverty levels in Great Britain” based on the two changes we are making to strengthen the Bill. No one who is already receiving an award of universal credit or PIP will be pushed in to poverty as a result of the direct impact of the measures in this Bill.

We continue our wider drive to tackle the scar of poverty—including by extending free school meals, expanding the warm home discount to an extra 2.7 million households next winter, and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families through our fair repayment rate on Universal Credit deductions.

We committed in the Green Paper to introduce the “right to try”, and I am pleased to announce that we have deposited in the House Library draft regulations alongside this Bill that establish in law the principle that work, in and of itself, will not lead to a reassessment. This will apply to all universal credit, new-style employment and support allowance and PIP customers. This is just the first step. As set out in the Pathways to Work Green Paper, we will also work with disabled people and stakeholders to explore ways to further strengthen this right to try guarantee.

Through measures within the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, we are giving people who are already on PIP the certainty they need, while increasingly targeting funding at those who need it most, to make sure the system is sustainable to support generations to come.

In addition to bringing forward amendments to the Bill we will also commit to spending an additional £300 million in the next three years on our investment in Pathways to Work, health and skills support.

At the spring statement in March, we announced Pathways to Work funding of:

£200 million for 26-27

£300 million for 27-28

£400 million for 28-29

£1 billion in 29-30

This investment in Pathways to Work support towards employment will now increase to:

£200 million in 2026-27

£400 million in 2027-28—up from £300 million

£600 million in 2028-29—up from £400 million

£1 billion in 29-30

This is on top of funding and support we are now mobilising through Connect to Work, WorkWell, local inactivity trailblazers and 1,000 new Pathways to Work advisers to support disabled people. This already amounts to the biggest employment support package for disabled people and people with health conditions in more than a generation. The extra money we are announcing today means that we will be able to go further and faster on our new planned investment in work, health and skills support offers, building on and learning from successes such as the Connect to Work programme, which is being rolled out over 2025 to provide disabled people and people with health conditions with one-to-one support at the point when they feel ready to work.

Alongside taking action to get welfare spending on a sustainable footing, so that help can be there for people who need it now and into the future, we are committed to a holistic programme of reform to make sure that PIP is fair and fit for the future. The PIP assessment review, which the Minister for Social Security and Disability is leading, is a significant part of this work.

In the Green Paper, we set out our intention to review the PIP assessment and make it fit for the future. We committed to bring together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this and to start the process of preparing for the review. I announced to the House on Monday 21 May that this process had started and, since then, the Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms), who will lead the review, has listened to a wide range of views, including holding roundtables with disability charities.

Today, I am pleased to announce we are publishing the terms of reference for the PIP assessment review and we will engage widely and at pace to design the process for its work. Because of our commitment to co-produce, the precise timeline for the review will be determined over the summer, based on the design work with stakeholders to ensure the review can fulfil its aims. I expect it to conclude by autumn 2026.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-06-30/HCWS755/

[HCWS755]

Welfare Reform

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement.

This is a Government in chaos: open rebellion from their own Back Benchers, unfunded U-turns costing billions, and welfare plans that are not worth the paper they are written on. Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work, while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill.

It is a long-held Conservative belief that those who can work, should work. Work provides security and purpose. That is why we launched universal credit, simplifying complex benefits and ensuring that work always paid. And it works. In the decade up to the pandemic, we got the number of people on benefits and the benefits bill itself down. Some 800 jobs were created for every day that we were in office, giving millions of people the dignity and security that work brings.

But then, during the pandemic, we saw something new. The health and disability bit of our benefits system started to break. The bill is forecast to hit £100 billion by 2030. One in every four pounds of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits—more than the entire defence budget. That is not fair for the taxpayer, not fair for people who are written off, and certainly not sustainable for the country.

Despite Labour having 14 years in opposition and now a year in government, they still do not have a plan to bring down the welfare bill or get people into work. What we have before us now is a rushed and chaotic compromise that is not reform in any sense of the word. It is woefully unambitious about savings, conspicuously lacking in compassion and achieves no meaningful change of a system we all know is broken. Thanks to the Government’s latest climbdown, we are left with a plan that will save just £2.5 billion of a £100 billion bill by introducing a two-tier system. Two people diagnosed with Parkinson’s a week apart will now receive different levels of support—all to clear up an internal Labour argument. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that these plans will not get a single person into work. The idea that work is the guiding motivation for these changes is laughable.

There are things that the Government could do. They could reform the fit note system, which sees 94% of people who apply told that they are too sick to do any work at all. They could say today that they would make all sickness benefit assessments face to face. They could get a grip of the rising claims for common mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. Claims for those and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD are the main reason for the steep rise in the number of people on sickness benefits, making up more than half of all new claims. The Centre for Social Justice has found that the Government could save up to £9 billion by reforming those benefits. However, nothing that we have seen from Labour over the past couple of weeks suggests that it has the courage and conviction to grip that problem. In the meantime, our welfare bill will only continue to rise.

We agree on the need for reform and have set out the conditions under which we would support the Government: first, the welfare budget must come down; secondly, we need to get people back into work; thirdly, there must be no new tax rises to pay for increases in welfare spending. But with the welfare bill ever growing, unemployment rising and jobs disappearing, the Bill fails on all accounts.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the changes she is announcing today will be paid for through borrowing or taxation? Where are these good jobs she claims to be creating, when vacancies are going down and unemployment is going up? Has she read the impact assessment for the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which makes it clear that it will be harder for people to find work as a result? Why did it take the Government a year to publish the terms of reference for their PIP assessment review, and when can we expect changes if it does not report back until autumn 2026? Could I try one more time to ask what the difference is between the Secretary of State’s right to try guarantee and our chance to work guarantee?

Finally, is this it? Are there any more savings? Are the Government not going to get any more people into work? Is this the extent of their ambition for reforming the welfare system during their time in office? In five years’ time, will this be the Secretary of State’s legacy?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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?

[Liz Kendall]

I know that the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about these issues. He raises the urgent need to ensure that our NHS is back on its feet. We are beginning to make a difference, with waiting lists down for the first time in two years and with 4 million appointments—more than double we promised—created in our first year.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the failings of Access to Work. I absolutely agree: that is why, as part of the Green Paper, we are looking to reform it so that it is available to more people in future. We care passionately about family carers. As I said in my statement, existing PIP claimants will be protected as a result of the changes announced today, as will those carers whose carer’s allowance is a passported benefit.

We are also looking at the future of social care with the review by Louise Casey. We are bringing these changes forward because we do not think it acceptable that the UK has one of the widest disability employment gaps in western Europe, at 28%, which is much higher than Germany, France and Sweden. We think that is unacceptable and we want to change it. That is why we are making these reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Our new jobs and careers service applies in all parts of the UK—including Scotland—to help get more people back into work with personalised support. The spending review has delivered an additional £9 billion for Scotland. It is the biggest ever settlement in the history of devolution. I hope that the SNP matches our ambition to get more people into good work instead of cutting the employability budget as it has done in recent years.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I think that the vast majority of people in this country believe in a welfare system that is compassionate to the vulnerable, and particularly to the disabled, but they can no longer understand why so many people here—in contrast to other similar countries—are in this situation where they are not working.

[John Glen]

Yes, we were in power for 14 years, and during covid, when I was a Minister, we made decisions such as stopping face-to-face assessments because we could not do them. We all recognise that the recovery from that covid time has not gone as well as it should, but if the Secretary of State cannot deliver a shift in the numbers, the economy will be in a death spiral. She needs to recognise that these changes need to be reset radically to meet the country’s expectations.

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely believe that we have to reset the system. We have to make sure that everybody who can work gets the opportunity to do so and the support they need. That is precisely what we are trying to do with these plans. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I admire, that it is precisely that failure and that mess that we are now trying to tackle.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for the movement made in the last week. It would have been good to have had those conversations earlier, but we are where we are. In response to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend spoke about the November deadline and the four points kicking in. Will she explain to the House the rationale for settling on those four points in one category prior to the Timms review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Our objective here is as it always has been, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and others for all their engagement with us. We are making these changes because we have to both get more people who can work into work and try to begin to focus this really important benefit on those with higher needs so that it is sustainable for the future. That will not affect existing PIP claimants, who will have their incomes protected; that is a very positive change that we are making. The Timms review will look at those descriptors and the points that are allocated as part of a much wider assessment, because we have to ensure that this benefit lasts for the future so that it is always there for those in greatest need.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State tells us that this week’s U-turn will cost £2,500 million a year by 2029. Will she tell the House how she proposes to cover that expense?

[Liz Kendall]

This change will be fully funded, and that will be set out in the normal way at the next fiscal event, as I am sure all hon. Members will appreciate.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome progress, but I cannot countenance sick and disabled people being denied support to enable them to be independent in the future, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. Nor can disabled people across our country support these measures. It is a matter of conscience. Will the Secretary of State set out why we are voting on these matters tomorrow, when the Timms review means that there could be real changes to the criteria used in assessments for people to score four points? It feels like signing a blank cheque.

[Liz Kendall]

I know my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues, but no existing claimant will be put into poverty as a result of the changes in the Bill. The figures that she is giving are about notional future claimants, and they take into account none of the record levels of employment support that we are putting into the system. We have published very clear evidence that proper support programmes can get sick and disabled people into work and to stay in work, making sure that they can improve their incomes and their lives. We have absolutely committed to co-producing the Timms review; indeed, we will be working very closely with disabled people on our reforms to access to work, and how we ensure that the pathways to work investment gets the best results for disabled people and their families. That work will take time, but we will implement the decisions as soon as possible.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

My constituent Steve had been a fit, active working person until about a year ago. Since then, he has been debilitated by ME, which has left him able to get out of the house for only about an hour every fortnight. Even getting dressed leaves him needing a lie down. PIP is already difficult for people like Steve to access. He told me that he would rather have lost both his legs than have got ME. Could the Secretary of State tell Steve why, if he had got ME two to three years later, he almost certainly would not have been eligible for any PIP at all?

[Liz Kendall]

I am deeply concerned to hear about what the hon. Lady’s constituent has been through. I have many constituents myself who have real needs but have struggled to get PIP. We absolutely want to make sure that the whole assessment process works as effectively as possible. I urge her and her constituents to feed into the Timms review. Once again, existing claimants like her constituent will not lose their income as a result of the changes in the Bill. It is very common throughout the benefits system to have existing claimants protected on old rules and old rates. That is what we are doing today.

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

I welcome the words of the Secretary of State that recognise the need to enable disabled people to fulfil their potential. Since April, I have engaged with the Government, making it clear that I could not support the proposals on PIP. Our manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people and the principle of working with disabled people. Having no public consultation on these plans excludes the voices of disabled people. This is not just about process; this makes disabled people worse off. The principle of fairness means that disabled people had a legitimate expectation to be consulted, in order to fulfil the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Why did the Department for Work and Pensions choose not to consult with disabled people on the PIP proposals, and what work will it do to win back the trust of disabled people?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a powerful voice, and I know she will always remain so in this House. We are absolutely committed to co-producing this PIP review, led by the Minister for Social Security and Disability. She may know that we are also setting up collaboration committees on access to work and pathways to make sure that we really get this right. I look forward to meeting her and many other disabled people and their organisations to make sure that we get this right as we go forward.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

To describe it as fair and equal to treat people with identical conditions differently purely on the basis of whether they are an existing recipient of benefits is Orwellian newspeak on stilts, isn’t it?

[Liz Kendall]

So why did the Conservative party do it for 14 years?

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Will the Timms review have the powers to review the planned budget savings for future claimants of PIP and universal credit health components? Also, if claimants request a reassessment because of worsening health conditions, will they be assessed on the current criteria or the new eligibility criteria?

[Liz Kendall]

The PIP review is not driven by an objective of making savings; it is about making sure that this vital benefit is fair and fit for the future. As is the case now, people can request reassessments whenever they want. Existing claimants will remain under the current rules, unless they request a reassessment, until November 2026. From then onwards, there will be that four-point minimum.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

If this is what Labour thinks people voted for and what people wanted when they voted in July last year, why was it not in the Labour manifesto? Why did Labour not put in its manifesto that it was going to cut the winter fuel payment, keep the two-child cap and push 150,000 more disabled people into poverty? Is it perhaps because the Secretary of State realised how deeply unpopular and wrong these changes would be?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[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?

[Liz Kendall]

No, that is not correct. As I set out in my statement, existing claimants on PIP will be protected. The reason we are making the changes for future claimants is that we want to start to focus that, for future claimants, on those with higher needs. For current claimants of both PIP and the universal credit health top-up, no one will be pushed into poverty as a result of the changes in the Bill.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Health and sickness benefit spending is set to hit £100 billion by the end of the Parliament, so why is the Secretary of State not bringing forward proper reforms rather than these rushed cuts imposed by the Chancellor that save only £2 billion, and that duck the difficult decisions to deal with the scale of the challenge that we face?

[Liz Kendall]

Perhaps the hon. Member should make that point to those on his Front Bench, who had 14 years.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I welcome the clarity that my right hon. Friend has set out, particularly for existing PIP claimants and those with severe conditions, but my constituents who I met this weekend want to have an active part in designing the changes that affect them. Can she confirm that my constituents will be able to feed their direct lived experience into the PIP review?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes; as I set out my statement, we intend to co-produce the Timms review with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, other experts and MPs, so my hon. Friend’s constituents will absolutely be able to feed their views into the review. We want to strike the right balance here, because co-production takes time. We want to do it as quickly as possible, but it has to be done as effectively as possible. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and involving her constituents’ views.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I spoke to a resident—a friend—in my constituency over the weekend. She is a wheelchair user since a failed back operation some years ago. She currently gets PIP. She gets three points for dressing and undressing and two points for washing and bathing. She needs help with both, yet she fears, as do I, that anybody with her exact needs applying after next November will be left without help. We are right, are we not, to be concerned and to fear that? That is unjust and uncaring, isn’t it?

[Liz Kendall]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that it is common through the benefit system to protect existing claimants from new rules and rates. I also say to him that we are putting billions of pounds extra into the NHS so people can get the health and social care support they need. We are putting in place the biggest-ever employment support investment for sick and disabled people because we know disabled people who are out of work are twice as likely to be in poverty. That is the investment we are making. His constituents will be protected and will not be put into poverty as a result of the changes in this Bill.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to bring forward a stronger Bill, working with colleagues across the House. The reality is that any one of us in this House could become disabled—disability does not discriminate. It is important for us to recognise the network of informal care that keeps our social care system going. The reality is that a number of carers would not be eligible for carer’s allowance without the PIP eligibility, and so many carers who receive carer’s allowance are in poverty. Those people do not do it for the money; they do it because they want to help a loved one or family friend. I know from personal experience, being a carer for my mum, the toll it takes when you help someone to bathe, to get out of bed, or to cook and clean. These people do not do it for the money, but they are scared. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will protect those carers in any future PIP changes because it is right that those carers should not be pushed further into poverty?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a huge champion of these issues, and I have long championed what unpaid family carers do. As she says, many do not even think they are a carer; they are just a husband, wife, son, daughter, mum or dad looking after the person they love. I want to reassure her, as I said in my statement, that existing PIP claimants and all those who get passported benefits, like carers, will be protected as a result of the changes we have made. Indeed, I know my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary wants to do far more to support family carers in future because without them, our NHS would collapse.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that, while necessary at the time of covid, the removal of the requirement for face-to-face assessments was an opening of the door to potential abuse? If so, will she commit in principle to the reinstatement of face-to-face assessments?

[Liz Kendall]

That is exactly what we committed to in our Green Paper.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Presumably, the outcome of the Timms review will require some form of primary legislation to enact the changes to the system that will come from the Department for Work and Pensions. In which case, I suggest to the Minister that removing clause 5 from the Bill tomorrow and putting it into any future legislation means the Department can still have its thresholds in the future if it wants to, but only once everybody knows against what criteria those judgments will be made.

[Liz Kendall]

We are co-producing this review, and it may result in changes that require primary or secondary legislation or other action, and I do not want to pre-empt that. Let me just bring my hon. Friend and the House back to the purpose of these changes: to ensure that we have a system that is fair for those who need support and fair for taxpayers, and to try to put the welfare state on a more sustainable footing for the future. If we do not do so, my real fear is that it will not be there for the very people who really, really need support going forward.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Today’s statement feels like a panicked political fix to an indefensible attempt to cut benefits from the most sick and from disabled people, but it lacks competence and compassion. Given that the Secretary of State talks about social justice, how can she justify people who might need that support in the future not receiving the support that disabled and sick people rightly receive today? Would the right thing to do not be to shelve these proposals so she can allow time to do what she has promised to do and to genuinely co-produce and consult with disabled people on the right way forward?

[Liz Kendall]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposition. Our changes are rooted in the clear principles that those who can work should work and need the support to do so, and those who cannot work should be protected, but that we need a system that is fair and sustainable. I do not believe that we can wait while disabled people in this country who want to work are denied the opportunities to do so. We cannot have a system where one in eight young people is not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings. We cannot see one in 10 of our fellow citizens trapped out of work and economically inactive, because that is not a good future for them or for our country.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

We already know that the Bill as published was flawed, because of the changes that have been made in the past few days and announced today. I welcome the wider review of PIP and the consultation with disabled people, their organisations and clinicians, but given the wider review and that the Timms review is yet to report, why are we pushing ahead at this stage?

[Liz Kendall]

Because we have to begin to reform the welfare state, to help those who can work to do so, to protect those who cannot and to begin to put our welfare state on a more sustainable footing. The Bill protects existing claimants—they will not be affected by the changes. It ensures that people have a right to try, and that those with severe, lifelong conditions never face reassessment. It comes alongside the biggest-ever employment support for sick and disabled people. Together, this is a fair and balanced package that meets the needs of existing claimants and reforms the welfare state for the future.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There were almost a million fewer workless households in 2024 than in 2010. One factor behind that was universal credit and reducing the barriers and perceived risks of going back into work if people were not sure how it would work out. Notwithstanding the right to try, if there are to be two different levels of health component outside the severe conditions criteria, will that not raise those barriers back up and do the exact opposite of the right hon. Lady’s stated intent?

[Liz Kendall]

I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. I actually think that universal credit sometimes locked people out of work, because they had to define themselves as incapable of working in order to afford to live. Less than 1% of people on UC move into work each month. That is not good enough for them, their incomes and their life chances, and it is not good enough for the taxpayer, either.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and her colleagues in the Department for their tireless work over the past week, and I very much welcome her commitment to co-production with disabled people in the Timms review. The atrocious handling of the pandemic by the previous Conservative Government has left the economy and disabled people paying the cost. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Timms review funding model will have the fiscal baseline of the inherited four-point system? If that is the case, how can that mean meaningful co-production with disabled people?

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the state of the economy. As I said in my statement, the four-point minimum will now not relate to existing claimants. It will come in for new claims in November 2026, but the Timms review and the co-production will look not only at the activities and the descriptors, but the points given to them. It is important that we do not set up a process of co-production and then overrule that. We want a benefits system that enables disabled people to have dignity and independence, and the same choices and chances to live the life that they want as anybody else has. It is a really important process, and I hope that she and many other hon. Members in the House will work with us to get this right.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I recently met a support group in my constituency of those who suffer from ME, chronic fatigue syndrome or long covid. Their description of the devastating impact of those variable conditions was very affecting. If one of those people were to have an improvement in their condition, meaning that they were no longer eligible for PIP, and then to represent for assessment, would they be entitled to return to the PIP level they were on previously, or would they be treated as new applicants under the terms the Secretary of State has described today?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is precisely what we want to look at in the PIP review, because it does not take into account fluctuating conditions. That is an important issue moving forward, and we will be absolutely determined to involve him, his constituents, and organisations that represent those with fluctuating conditions in the process of the review.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my colleagues on the Front Bench for listening to what Back Benchers have been saying for months, and for making so many changes. However, I did not see any changes that affect young people, particularly care-experienced young people. Will the Secretary of State cast some light on what discussions are ongoing with young people about the processes involving them?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As part of the process of the Green Paper we are establishing a youth panel to ensure that young people’s voices are heard in our future reforms. Many of the youth guarantee trailblazers that we are putting in place as part of our £240 million Get Britain Working plan are looking to provide extra support for young care leavers, because they are in different circumstances and need extra help. I am sure there is far more that we could be doing in future, and I urge her to work with us to ensure that their views are at the heart of our plans.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Many on the DUP Benches want to support the Government in achieving the objective of getting people back to work, and being fair to those who cannot work, but does the Secretary of State realise how difficult her actions make it for us to give support? Last week the Deputy Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said, “These proposals will go before Parliament this week. They’re fair, and if they don’t go, there is a black hole in the economy that we cannot fill.” This week we are now told, “Actually, lots of people were vulnerable, and it’s not fair, and they rely on the income, and we will find the money.” The only thing that has changed in the week is that 120 Back Benchers signed letters that would not support the proposals. Does the Secretary of State realise how cynical that appears? This is not about well-thought-out proposals, but simply a way of buying back the Back Benchers who were rebelling.

[Liz Kendall]

It might astonish the House that I think leadership is about sticking to our principles and values, and listening to ensure that we get things right. I believe that listening is a strength not a weakness, and I believe that in politics as well as in life.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that our welfare system must do much more to support and reward work, and also support people who are looking to re-enter or enter work? What difference does she believe that the right to try guarantee will make in achieving that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Labour’s historic mission is to help more people who can work into good jobs in every part of the land. That is not only because we believe that is key to improving living standards, but because of the self-respect, dignity and purpose that good work brings. The right to try is an important step—we know that around 50% of sick and disabled people say that the reason they are not trying work is because they fear they will be reassessed for their benefits. We have got to put that right. We have also got to put in place the employment support. We have to create good jobs in every part of the country, and get those waiting lists down so that people can get back to health and back to work. We are taking action on all those fronts, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in his constituency so that more of his constituents can benefit.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It seems entirely reasonable that a Government should want to control the amount that they spend on welfare, and entirely reasonable to want to focus that on the most in need. However, I do not understand why they brought out such rushed changes, which have done nothing but cause anxiety and distress, and left them in a worst position in which they have now U-turned and are neither making savings nor reforming welfare. Will the Secretary of State please explain the rationale for the four-point limit that she brought in?

[Liz Kendall]

For new claimants, it is because we believe that we need to begin to focus this vital disability benefit on those with higher needs. I am deeply concerned that a doubling in the number of people on PIP over this decade, from 2 million to 4.3 million, with claims and awards rising at twice the rate of the increase in the number of disabled people in society, risks the sustainability of the system in future. We have to ensure that it is there for those who really need it, providing that vital safety net going forward. The hon. Lady talks about having a reasonable approach, and I really do believe that this is reasonable. I believe that protecting existing claimants and beginning to make changes for future claimants, backed by the changes to the right to try, stopping reassessments and investing in real employment support, is the fair and right balance for the people who need support and for taxpayers.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for her engagement. My question is about the co-production proposal. By what mechanism will that be given effect, and how is co-production different from consultation? Will disability groups have any entitlements or powers beyond simply giving their views?

[Liz Kendall]

We are not setting out the precise detail of how co-production works; I think that would go against the very essence of it. We are already in discussion with disabled people and their organisations. On our Green Paper, we have already set out what we call collaboration committees, reforms to access to work, our pathways to work and investment in employment support, because we want to get this right. We look forward to those discussions to ensure that people have a proper say and are fully engaged and involved, because we want to make sure that we get this right.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State recognised that existing claimants

“rely on the income from PIP for so many different aspects of their lives.”

One aspect, for many, is work. Why does she think that new claimants will not have the same need and what “aspects of their lives” does she think they should curtail?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Access to work is there precisely to support people who have needs over and above the legal requirement on employers to make reasonable adjustments. We need to fix that system because the backlogs are too long and not enough people are getting that support. That is precisely why we are consulting on the future of access to work. We will make the changes that people need, so that they can get the help they need to get good meaningful work and to stay in work, and we will deliver that as soon as possible.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Despite the changes, is it not the case that over 400,000 disabled people—our constituents—who need assistance to cut up their food, wash themselves, go to the toilet and dress themselves, will be denied PIP from next year, when they currently would have got it? Is not the reality that Labour MPs will have to deal with that, week after week, in their constituency surgeries? Would it not be better if, rather than trying to save political face, the Government pulled this artificial, politically imposed deadline of tomorrow? It is important not that we save face, but that we get it right.

[Liz Kendall]

Many hon. Members have understandably raised concerns because their constituents who are on PIP, right here and now, are extremely anxious, even though if they are still on PIP at the time when the changes come in, nine out of 10 of them will not be affected—they will be protected in future. The Timms review will look at this vital benefit going forward—the activities, the descriptors and the points they get—and I really hope that my hon. Friend will engage with us throughout the process to ensure that we get it right.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

The UK Government’s amendments to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill were not included in the initial statement on the Bill’s compatibility with the European convention on human rights. Discrimination is a real concern, given that two people with the same condition could receive different support, based on when they become sick or turn 18. Will the Secretary of State make an updated statement on compatibility and confirm that her Department has complied with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010?

[Liz Kendall]

I can indeed confirm that we have complied with all our legal requirements.

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

I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s commitment to getting this right. She will be very aware that, as it stands, the legal advice we have had is that these proposals will breach our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The previous Government did that, and we rightly challenged them on it. So that we do not make the same mistake, will she give a commitment to write into a Bill that these proposals will be compliant with that commitment to ensure that persons with disabilities have social protection and the enjoyment of that right without discrimination on the basis of their disability?

[Liz Kendall]

I simply say to my hon. Friend, who knows that I have deep respect for her, that I would not be making any changes that I believed were incompatible with the law.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I am sure that the Chancellor will be delighted that the flip-flopping of the Prime Minister means she has to find another £2.5 billion in taxation on people in this country. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair that a two-tier system has been created? Why would anybody on the old rate seek work when they know that if they go into work, it does not work out and they claim again, they will get a reduced rate under her Government?

[Liz Kendall]

Because PIP is not an in-work benefit.

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

The north-east has the highest rate of disability in the country—31%—and more than a quarter of those of working age live in poverty, so the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that welfare reform is hard, essential and must reflect Labour values and disabled voices. Will she set out how the co-production of the new system with disability groups will ensure that it is a fairer system? How will disability groups in the north-east be able to be involved?

[Liz Kendall]

We will absolutely ensure that the views and voices of disabled people right across the country, including in the north-east, are fully involved in our process of co-production. My hon. Friend is a powerful champion of that, and I hope that she, too, will get involved with our plans. The Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), will develop the process of co-production in close conduct with disabled people and their organisations, and I am sure that he will update the House shortly as those plans progress.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On page 3 of her statement, the Secretary of State asked herself a rhetorical question about a two-tier system. Somebody who is now eligible for personal independence payment gets it, but can she simply confirm that somebody who suffers the same kind of condition whenever this Bill becomes law will not be eligible for the personal independence payment? Their support will be from friends or family, or they will have no support at all. Is she really happy that we are deliberately creating a two-tier system for people with profound needs and disabilities who quite rightly expect the community as a whole to recognise and support them?

[Liz Kendall]

I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are many differences in the benefits system already—people are on different rates and have different rules depending on the time they came into the system. That has always been a part of the social security system, including under previous Labour Governments. The Timms review will look at the different descriptors and the points that are delivered to them, alongside much wider changes. PIP came in more than 10 years ago, and there have been huge changes in the nature of disability, the world of work and society. We have to ensure that this vital benefit stays in future, and that is what the Timms review seeks to achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think it would be helpful to let Members know that I plan to allow this statement to continue until 5.15 pm. It would therefore be helpful if questions were short.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Over recent months, I have consulted with constituents who have lived experience of disability and the welfare system and their representatives. I know that they will welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that protections for existing claimants will be protected, but one of the most heartbreaking stories I heard in those consultations was about a young constituent who applied for hundreds of jobs and attended dozens of interviews and simply could not find a job. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what more we can do not just to support disabled people in my constituency, but to encourage employers to take on some of the talented, brilliant people living with disabilities in my constituency?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is the world of work and the need to ensure that employers recruit and retain more people with long-term sickness or a disability. That is precisely why, in addition to the huge advances in our Employment Rights Bill, we have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former boss of John Lewis, to look at what more we can do to support employers to recruit and retain disabled people. We are also overhauling our jobcentres so that they provide more personalised, tailored support. Indeed, we have set our jobcentres a new goal of reducing the disability employment gap, which I believe will also make a huge difference.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Cameron Thomas.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Welcome back, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government’s recent compromise with their own MPs secures PIP for existing claimants, but not for those who come hereafter—a distinction born not of compassion, nor apparently of economics, but to secure the Government’s own political footing. If I am wrong, will the Secretary of State describe the moral foundation for this distinction between those who suffer today and those who will suffer in the future?

[Liz Kendall]

I am not going to take any lectures on compassion. I have fought my whole life to tackle poverty and drive up opportunity for people, no matter where they are born, what their parents did, their gender, their sexuality or the colour of their skin. The social security system has many different rules for new and previous claimants. I do not believe that is an unfair system; I believe it is the way in which we protect people who have come to rely on a benefit. I am proud of the changes we have announced today—I think they are positive and get us to a good place. Listening is a sign of strength, and I am absolutely determined to continue to listen.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and for the steps she has taken to improve the Bill. In launching the Timms review, she has accepted that the current PIP assessment criteria and descriptors are not fit for purpose. Can she confirm that the difference between the timetable for implementing the change that will require applicants to achieve four points in a single category and the timetable for completing and implementing the Timms review will result in some people falling between the old system and the new one? They will be required to achieve four points on criteria that are not fit for purpose. For how long will that happen, who will be affected, and what will happen to those people in future?

[Liz Kendall]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked extremely hard on all of those issues. That question was raised previously by another colleague, and the answer is that there will be two sets: the people who are on the existing system, who will be protected; and those who will be on the four points as we go forward. However, the Timms review will indeed look at the descriptors and the different points that they get. Those changes will come in as soon as possible—the review will report by autumn 2026 and we will try to put the changes in place as quickly as possible. We do not yet know what the review will say or how those changes will be enacted, but we are determined to ensure that they are put in place as soon as possible.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Is the problem for the Government not the failure of the Prime Minister to even seek a mandate for what he is trying to do? He said that he would limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, but he has increased spending by eight times as much, and the effect on the fiscal rules is the root cause of this problem. He also won the Labour leadership by promising to

“abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime”,

but then he masqueraded as a welfare reformer. Does the Secretary of State now realise that to win a mandate, one needs to be straight with people, including one’s own MPs?

[Liz Kendall]

I am very proud of our Prime Minister, who changed our party so that we can change our country, and the mandate can be seen by the number of MPs on the Benches behind me.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Increasing access to employment opportunities for disabled people and improving the retention of disabled workers were urgent before, and they are even more urgent now. My right hon. Friend did not mention the Mayfield review, although she has just mentioned it in response to a question. Can I please push her on that review? First, can she expedite it; secondly, can it include disabled people more meaningfully than it has until now; and thirdly, will it indicate how the Government will implement our manifesto commitment to increase access to reasonable adjustments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

The Mayfield review will be reporting before the Budget. Sir Charlie Mayfield wants to work closely with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. He has seen inspiring examples of what good employers are doing and good things that other countries are doing, and that will provide some insightful lessons. The Minister for Social Security and Disability has already said that we are looking at whether we should put in place a timeframe within which employers need to respond to requests for reasonable adjustments. We want to make sure that those adjustments are made as quickly as possible, so that more disabled people can get work and stay in work.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Why are the proposed PIP cuts still being applied to new claimants, many of whose needs are as urgent and severe as those of existing claimants?

[Liz Kendall]

The reason we are protecting existing claimants and beginning to focus PIP on those with higher needs in future is because we want a system that is sustainable and lasts. I do not believe it is sustainable to have a doubling of the number of PIP claims every decade, adding 1,000 people a day. The rate is rising faster than the increase in prevalence of disabled people in this country. The truth is that the parts of the country that have the highest disability benefit claims and incapacity benefit claims are the places that were decimated by the Tories in the ’80s and ’90s, when whole industries closed. Those places are yet to have the investment they need to create jobs and have not had the investment in the NHS. I have always believed in the social model of disability. We have to put these things right urgently, because disabled people deserve a better life than they had under the Conservatives.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her work on this issue and for making the statement today, although I share hon. Members’ concerns that making changes before a review is putting the cart before the horse. I must just press her on this. While I welcome the changes that bring immediate security and protection for existing claimants, can she please confirm whether, if an existing claimant or someone on a legacy benefit is reassessed, the new measures or the existing ones will apply? On carers, future applicants will face increased eligibility criteria. Will carers be included in the co-production review carried out by the Minister for Social Security and Disability?

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability and I met carers’ organisations and many other disability organisations the day after we published the Green Paper. I want to be crystal clear: people who are currently on PIP and are on PIP by the time these changes come in—November 2026 —will remain on that benefit under those old rules.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In the first lines of her statement, the Secretary of State affirmed that this Government believe in equality. Where is the equality in evaluating one person’s eligibility for the daily living component of PIP on the practical consequences of their disability, and evaluating another on the date of their application?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

This is a really common issue in the benefit system. If we could never change it, we could not undertake reforms to make it sustainable for the future. Existing claimants will remain on the current rules, even if and when they are reassessed. Changes will come in for new claimants from November 2026, but our review will look, as I have said many times, at the different activities and descriptors, and the points that they will get, because we need to make sure that this vital benefit is sustainable for the future.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming this afternoon. I welcome her announcement that the Timms review of the PIP process will be undertaken in partnership with people with disabilities; that is critical, because in more than 70% of appeals, PIP outcomes are overturned in favour of the claimant. We need to get the assessment right first time and every time for all applicants. Does she agree?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I decided to go into politics because I believed that luck played too great a role in shaping people’s course and their quality of life, but unfortunately the system that has been announced today leaves the fate of many disabled people down to luck—to whether they applied before November 2026, or after. I hope that the Secretary of State will reverse her decision and drop the Bill tomorrow, but in case she will not, may I ask her to commit to engaging with Kathy, a disabled person in my constituency who runs a Facebook group of 44,000 people advising on PIP and disability-related matters, to ensure that their voices are at the centre of the plans?

[Liz Kendall]

I will absolutely commit to ensuring that those views and voices are heard, and I am sure that, as a strong champion for his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will do so as well. However, I do not believe that this is about luck; I believe that certain parts of the country, and different types of people, have been repeatedly neglected and denied opportunities and support. There is nothing about luck here. This is about people and places that have been written off and denied opportunities for too long. Governments, if they are determined, can make a difference, and that is what we intend to do.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I have conducted a survey of my constituents on the subject of welfare reform, and I submitted the findings to the consultation. I have also met disability groups across Swansea and disabled constituents to hear their concerns. The problems that I have found to be the most prevalent in Gower are the incompetence of Capita and the inconsistencies of Department for Work and Pensions decision makers. That is why I genuinely welcome the announcement of the Timms review, but what reassurances can the Secretary of State give that the review will address this matter and give people confidence in the decision-making process?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend should, 100%, send me the details of those findings and concerns. One of the reasons we are not only bringing back face-to-face assessments but recording them as standard is our wish to get to the bottom of this and make sure that we put it right.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Over the weekend, I had the privilege of engaging in a number of in-depth conversations with people and families living with disabilities, and I thank Dartford’s Kindness Community for arranging that event. One comment that I heard again and again from the people I talked to was about how poor the health service had been at helping disabled people to manage their conditions over many years. How can the DWP and the Department of Health and Social Care work together to ensure that disabled people are properly supported and helped into work?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. There is far more that the health service can do to help people with long-term sickness and disability to manage their conditions better, because they cannot do it on their own; they need the right help and support. Our joint work and health unit is working on precisely those issues, and I am indeed working closely with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, because getting people back to health and back to work is so important. We know that good work is critical to good health, and good health is critical to people getting into work. Those are two sides of the same coin. We must end these false divides and get this sorted out, so that we can help people to fulfil their ambitions and work.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. It is vital for us to have a social security system that protects the most vulnerable, the ill and the disabled, so will she clarify one provision in the Bill? Will both the standard element and the health element of universal credit rise in line with inflation? If that does not happen, disabled people will be pushed further into poverty and hardship.

[Liz Kendall]

I want to make it very clear that the combined rate of the standard allowance and the health top-up will indeed rise in line with inflation, so that existing claimants are protected in real terms, and the incomes of those with severe lifelong conditions and those at the end of their life are also protected in real terms through the combined universal credit standard allowance top-up.

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

The Bill still leaves over £3.5 billion of cuts falling on disabled people and unpaid carers, with hundreds of thousands of new claimants set to lose thousands of pounds each year. Protections for existing claimants are welcome, but a two-tier system will generate hardship for many and create societal divisions. We are being asked to vote without vital evidence—without the Office for Budget Responsibility impact assessment, or the Timms and Mayfield reviews. Serious questions remain unanswered, and we are without clarity on outcomes and implementation. Will the Secretary of State continue to listen, withdraw this Bill, and co-design welfare reform with disabled people’s groups?

[Liz Kendall]

I say to my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, that none of this takes into account the biggest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people. People have often said, “Wait for the OBR’s assessment,” but we have published very clear evidence that good employment programmes can help disabled people into work—programmes such as Work Choice, a Labour programme ended by the Tories, which saw 40% more disabled people in work for eight years. That is based not just on economic theory, but on practical reality. That is the difference that this Labour Government want to make.

[Nadia Whittome]

Disabled people’s organisations have been clear that even with these concessions, they oppose this Bill. The Government talk of co-production of the PIP review, but it is not co-production if the starting point is delivering cuts, and if the Government are asking disabled people where they would prefer those cuts to be, rather than how we can create a system that truly supports disabled people. Does the Secretary of State not accept that, after months of the Government ignoring disabled people, the only way that meaningful co-production can take place is if the Bill is pulled and they go back to the drawing board?

[Liz Kendall]

I gently say to my hon. Friend that we will protect existing claimants. That is the very purpose of the announcements we have made today. No existing PIP claimants, or people receiving universal credit and the health top-up, will be put into poverty as a result of this Bill—far from it. We are changing the system so that many more sick and disabled people who want to work can actually get work. That is about building a better life in future. This Labour Government believe that if someone can work and wants to work, they should have the chance and choice to do so. Some 200,000 sick and disabled people say that they would work right now with the right help and support. We are not cutting the support for that; we are actually increasing it, because we believe that work is the key to a better life.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the recent move to protect existing claimants. I appreciate that the adult disability payment is devolved to the Scottish Government. However, my constituents are really concerned about the potential for different qualifying criteria across the nations, which may result in limited access to passported benefits from November 2026. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that they will not lose the benefits to which they currently have access, and the vital support on which their households rely?

Following the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), it is really unclear whether the House is being asked to agree to a four-point assessment without knowing the outcome of the Timms review with regard to descriptors—or could that review result in more fundamental reforms that would rip up the current PIP system?

[Liz Kendall]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, she will know that PIP is devolved to Scotland. I believe that the Scottish Government are reviewing the ADP at the minute, including the eligibility criteria. That will be a matter for them, but I want to be clear to the House that the new four-point minimum requirement will come into force in November 2026 for new claims, and existing claimants will be protected. Of course, the Timms review will look at the different descriptors and the points for them in future, but the four-point minimum and the daily living component for new claimants will remain.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Conservative party presided over multiple reforms of welfare, and the results were a disaster. Perhaps cruellest of all was the fact that adults who had an irreversible health condition, and who could never work, were forced to go through reassessment after reassessment, and to jump through hoops. Can my right hon. Friend please confirm that, with these Labour reforms, that cruel legacy will be ended once and for all?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I can. I believe that the unnecessary and unacceptable stress that that created was not right, and we will fix that with the reforms in the Bill, because people need to live in dignity and security.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

The Labour party is defined by work and by the dignity of work, and so is my community in Gateshead and Whickham. People have the belief that they should be able to work to provide for themselves, their family and their community, but too many in my community have been let down by successive Governments of all parties who have not created the jobs we need and by a failed system. Not one person who has spoken today—not one—has defended the existing indefensible system. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that communities like mine, where work or a lack of work is the problem, receive the support we need?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about Labour’s historic mission to help people who can work to do so, and about the fact that his constituents have been denied that support for so long. We want to transform that. With an ageing society in which more of us will be living with a disability or with one, two or more long-term chronic conditions and in which we will be caring for people, we believe that we have to change the welfare state. We have to provide more support to help people work, and the world of work needs to change. That is why not only have we commissioned the Mayfield review, but we are putting in the biggest ever employment support for sick and disabled people, with the additional £300 million of support I have announced today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

Having met disabled constituents over the last few months, I have no doubt that the initial proposals caused anxiety, so I do welcome the changes for existing claimants and the Timms review. However, can I urge the Secretary of State to look at the sequencing to make sure that the review happens before we assess new claimants? I have one final point about the assessors themselves. There is no doubt but that the involvement of private companies such as Capita and Maximus has caused problems, as has having assessors who do not understand health conditions. Can we make sure that we look at that properly?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we are absolutely committed to looking at that. In fact, we announced in the Green Paper that we are overhauling our entire safeguarding process, including the training of assessors, because we want to get this right. We will not only bring back face-to-face assessments, but record them as standard, which I believe together will make a real difference to the process and ensure we get the decisions right first time.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

These so-called concessions go nowhere near far enough, and tomorrow I will be voting against these cruel cuts, but I want to ask this. Can the Secretary of State name a single disabled person-led organisation that supports this legislation?

[Liz Kendall]

I understand why disability organisations are making the points they are. That is their job; our job is different. Our job is to take the right decisions—ones that we believe are fair—to make sure we have a system that works for the people who need support, but that is also sustainable for the future. That is not easy—that is a statement of the obvious—but I believe we have a fair package. It is a package that protects existing claimants because they have come to rely on that support, as is often the case in the social security system. It begins to tackle the perverse incentive that encourages people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live, and it puts in place employment support to help the hundreds of thousands of disabled people and people with long-term conditions who want to work. That is the right way forward, and I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will get involved in the Timms review to ensure future changes make this vital benefit fit for the future.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Last week, I spoke to one of my constituents, Mike, a disabled person who speaks on behalf of many disabled constituents across Warwickshire. He is really pleased that he will have the right to try work, and he is also really pleased that disabled people will be treated with dignity and will be part of the co-production of the new proposals. However, he is still fearful that these changes may mean losses and difficult situations for disabled people like him. Can the Secretary of State reassure Mike that one of her Ministers will meet him to discuss these changes? In particular, how will we look at fluctuating conditions such as ME and MS, which my partner suffers from, so that such people do not lose out and so that we make the changes positive for every disabled person up and down the country?

[Liz Kendall]

We want to work with MPs, disabled people, their organisations and other experts, as part of co-producing the Timms review. The point about fluctuating health conditions is really important and something we have to crack for the future, because so many people have those conditions. They may be able to work one day and not another, or to work three days at home but not five days. We must make it fit for the future, because the reality is that we are living longer, more of us have disabilities and more of us have two, three or more long-term conditions. The welfare state in its broadest sense—the NHS, as well as the benefits system—and the world of work have to wake up to that. As we live longer, we will have to work for longer, but we have to make that practical and decent.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

This is a relatively small Bill, but one core part of it has now been delegated to the PIP review and that will not report until November 2026. Can my right hon. Friend say just how many disabled groups have indicated they want to participate in the PIP review? She has set out a number of red lines today that I doubt they would agree with. If they were to propose that we do not have a two-tier system, what would be the Government’s response?

[Liz Kendall]

The Minister for Social Security and Disability and I have met many disabled organisations. In fact, he has spoken to many already about the review. We will continue to discuss with them precisely how the system of co-production will work, but I want to assure my hon. Friend that it is serious. We want to make sure people’s views and voices are heard, and I encourage him, as a Member of Parliament, to get involved in the process too.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

As a signatory to the reasoned amendment, I welcome the listening that has gone on, because a lot of people with disabilities will sleep more soundly in their beds knowing that their benefits are protected. However, on a specific point, if someone currently receives PIP but their condition is getting worse and they ask for a reassessment of the level of their PIP, will they be assessed under the current system or under the new one?

[Liz Kendall]

They are an existing claimant and they will be assessed—let me be really clear about this—under the existing rules.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. PIP is, of course, a passport to freedom for many other things such as the carer’s allowance, and many local authorities use PIP for blue badges and bus passes. Does the Secretary of State have a plan to mitigate the impact of the potential changes to PIP eligibility on access to blue badges and bus passes for disabled people?

[Liz Kendall]

As I said in my statement, existing PIP claimants will continue to have that benefit. It will not be affected even if they have a reassessment, and neither will all the passported benefits. Carer’s allowance is the best known, but all passported benefits will be included in that protection.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

This morning I met Parkinson’s UK, which is very concerned about the changes to both PIP and universal credit, and in particular that they will not take account of those with variable conditions. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that Parkinson’s UK will be involved in the co-design of the changes to PIP, universal credit and other welfare benefits, and that any welfare change will fully consider those with Parkinson’s and other variable conditions?

[Liz Kendall]

I am absolutely sure that Parkinson’s UK will be involved closely in the PIP review.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Two weeks ago, I held an in-person consultation on the welfare reforms. Many of my constituents were deeply concerned about the proposals, so I welcome the changes the Secretary of State has announced for existing claimants. I want to ask about employment support. I welcome the additional support being brought forward. When will we get more detail on how that will be allocated to schemes across the country, and will the people who need it most be involved in the co-production of those schemes, so that they work effectively?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we already have what we are calling a collaboration committee on the pathways-to-work funding to ensure that it really meets the needs of sick and disabled people. As I have said in the House before, it really is about a pathway to work—for some people, just getting out of the house, or getting out of bed, is a huge achievement; for others, it might be about going along to a group, beginning to speak to other people and getting their confidence back. It really is a pathway to success. We will be setting out precise allocations of the pathways-to-work funding in due course, but I want to reassure Members that it will be available in every single part of the country.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I grew up caring for two disabled parents. As a kid, I saw at first hand the harms that happen when the British state routinely lets down disabled people. It is why disabled civil rights activists have a phrase, “Nothing about us without us,” and it is why I am looking for genuine and meaningful co-production.

On Friday, I brought together seven Bournemouth support organisations and people with lived experience, and they wanted me to raise two issues. The first is continuing concern about the eligibility criteria. The second is whether the mental health support that the Government are rolling out will be in place in sufficient quantity to support potential new claimants by November 2026.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about mental health support. This Government are determined to ensure that there is parity of esteem between physical and mental health. We have already recruited 6,700 of the 8,500 additional mental health workers we promised in our manifesto, and we are putting in place new emergency mental health services and bringing in new Young Futures hubs, which will include mental health support. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is determined to ensure that that support is available in every part of the country. I am sure we will hear more in the coming weeks and months.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging at the Dispatch Box the anxiety of disabled people. I am also grateful for the time of the Disability Minister in listening to my concerns about the PIP assessment process—concerns that I now see reflected in the Timms review. I am sure the Secretary of State will be disappointed to hear that at a recent consultation event in the north-east, some of my constituents found that the venue was not fully disability compliant. Will she assure me that the Government will ensure full accessibility for participation in the Timms review?

[Liz Kendall]

That is unacceptable, and I will sort it.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I wonder if she will reflect on whether the Bill before us tomorrow is the best way of making welfare policy. Would it not be better to withdraw the Bill and wait for the Timms review to complete its important work?

[Liz Kendall]

Welfare touches on the lives of millions of people in this country every single day. Making changes to it is never easy—perhaps particularly for a Labour Government, because tackling poverty and inequality is in our DNA. However, I believe that we must begin to make these changes to ensure that those who can work get the support they need, to protect those who cannot and to begin to slow the rate of increase in the number of extra people going on to sickness and disability benefits. I believe that the route to equality and social justice can never come from extra benefit spending alone; it has to come from putting in place good jobs, a decent health service, skills and transport infrastructure—the good world of work that we know is key to bringing about a better life.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is clear that the central issues for many on the Government Benches remain. Rushing through legislation without full and meaningful consultation with disability groups is the wrong way round—we do not build policy first and ask questions later. The Government’s arbitrary deadline is not a necessity, but a political choice. They are forcing through decisions that risk pushing hundreds of thousands more disabled people into poverty. I therefore say to the Secretary of State with absolute sincerity on behalf of many Members: do the fair thing—and, more importantly, the right thing—and withdraw this Bill and listen to disabled people.

[Liz Kendall]

I believe that we are doing the fair thing and the right thing. We are beginning to make reforms to put our welfare bill on a sustainable footing for generations to come. We are beginning to put in place the employment support that sick and disabled people have been denied for too long. We are making sure that those with severe and lifelong conditions are never again reassessed, and that there is a new right to try. I believe that this is a fair and balanced package. Above all, I believe that it is the right one.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the Government’s work to ensure that help is there for those who need it now and in future. Many in this House will be worried that progress on closing the disability employment gap stalled under the Conservative party, at 28 percentage points. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is one of the metrics that the Government are focusing on in the strategy, and that the gap must and will close under this Government?

[Liz Kendall]

We are absolutely determined to achieve that. I do not believe that it is acceptable that in this country the disability employment gap is 28 percentage points. That is one of the widest in all Europe: in France, Germany and Switzerland, I think it is at about 22 to 23 percentage points. We have to tackle that, because if we believe that the rights of disabled people who can work are equal to those of anybody else, we have to start making a difference.

I know that this is an issue of deep concern for many Members across the House, but I believe that the package we are putting forward today is a fair one and is the right one. I will continue to listen to Members of this House, but we cannot wait to reform the welfare system. People need us to make changes, and our country demands it.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the concerns of Back Benchers and for making some real and meaningful improvements based on the concerns that we have been raising privately. I also thank her for confirming explicitly, a moment ago, that my constituents who are reassessed post November 2026 will be reassessed under the current system. May I gently encourage the Secretary of State to go further and to overhaul and radically rethink the role of jobcentres? Far too often, they hold people back rather than breaking down the barriers to people’s progress into work.

[Liz Kendall]

Our Minister for Employment is indeed overhauling our jobcentres so that they provide personalised, tailored support for people to get into work, not some sort of endless tick-box process, and so that they are much more linked to the wider system in local areas: to the local NHS, to skills providers and, above all, to employers. I do not think it acceptable that only one employer in six has ever used a jobcentre to recruit. That is why we are overhauling our strategy with single account managers for employers, to fully involve and engage them, because we need their involvement if we are to help more people to get work and get on in work.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

My borough, Sandwell, has one of the highest rates in the entire country of young people not in education, employment or training. This generation of young people have been let down by years and years of system failure by the Conservative party. As we go through this necessary piece of reform, we must do it carefully. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with the Department for Education and the Department for Business and Trade? For young people to get the jobs that will transform their life chances, they will need the right qualifications as well as needing the jobs to be available.

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree. Let us be honest: today’s economy is brutal for people without skills. We are already setting out our plans to reform the system of apprenticeships. We want to see new foundation apprenticeships. We are bringing in new six-week SWAPs—sector-based work academy programmes—that will give people guaranteed work experience and a guaranteed interview, which I think will make a real difference to young people. There is much more to do, but our commitment to a youth guarantee so that every young person is earning or learning is the key to a better future for young people and for our country as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to reduce the number of children in poverty in Gloucester.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

If I may briefly say so, I am very proud that the spending review delivered the largest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people—quadrupling what we inherited from the last Government to over £1 billion a year, or a total of £3.5 billion over this Parliament—so that those who can work get the support they need, while we protect those who can never work.

Tackling child poverty is my personal priority, so I am proud that the Education Secretary and I are bringing in free school meals for all children in families on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty—a down payment on our child poverty strategy. We are also delivering the first ever three-year funding settlement for the household support fund, including for holiday hunger, and we are committed to funding the holiday activities and food programme, stopping kids going hungry while they are at school and during the holidays, too.

[Gregor Poynton]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. One of the best ways of reducing child poverty is helping parents into good, stable and well-paid jobs, which the SNP Scottish Government are failing abjectly to do. For example, the SNP manifesto in 2021 promised to double investment in the paternal employment fund to £15 million over two years to help low-income families get into work. However, in 2023 that pledge was scrapped. Will the Secretary of State call on the Scottish Government to put some of their record funding into employability funds, to help my Livingston constituents get into work and to provide good jobs right across Scotland?

[Liz Kendall]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Economic inactivity is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, and a staggering one in six young Scots are not in education, employment or training. We have delivered an extra £9 billion for Scotland over the spending review—the biggest settlement in the history of devolution—and I hope the SNP will match our ambition to get people who can work into work by investing in employment services, not cutting them, as they have in recent years.

[Alex McIntyre]

The expansion of free school meals will massively help families in my constituency of Gloucester and take them out of poverty. Can the Secretary of State confirm how many more families in Gloucester will be eligible for free school meals under the Government’s expansion, and what steps is she taking with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that every child is able to access that support?

[Liz Kendall]

This vital step will benefit 7,560 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It comes on top of rolling out free breakfast clubs, starting with Calton and Grange primary schools in his constituency, our new fair repayment rate in universal credit, and the first ever permanent, above-inflation increase in the standard allowance of universal credit, a vital part of our welfare reforms, putting more money into the pockets of hard-working families and helping to give all children the best start in life.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

At the lobby last week by the food banks, a number of people expressed the wish to have greater facilities to educate their clients with respect to shopping and preparing meals more effectively. They make a fair point, don’t they?

[Liz Kendall]

As the former chair of Feeding Leicester, I know that many of our food banks offer a range of support, helping to signpost people to mental health treatment, debt advice and other measures to improve their wellbeing. They certainly do not need any advice from Conservative Members. Under their watch, we saw 900,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in poverty. It is time they took a lesson from this side of the House to get this issue right.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Probably the largest single driver of child poverty in my communities is the enormous cost of housing. The average house price in my community is up to 13 times average household incomes. That drives grinding poverty, particularly among children. Will the Secretary of State have a word with her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that a disproportionate amount of housing grant goes to rural communities such as mine, in particular with the Windermere Gateway scheme?

[Liz Kendall]

Reducing housing costs is one of the key things we are looking at in the child poverty taskforce in advance of our strategy, which we will publish in the autumn. We are investing an additional £39 billion in building more social, affordable and other homes, but I will, of course, always raise all issues relating to housing, because kids deserve to live in good homes that are affordable. That is what this Government intend to achieve.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

As is the case for my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), a number of my constituents are affected by the two-child cap, with the latest statistics showing that 330 households in my constituency are impacted. I absolutely agree with a number of charities that removing the cap alone is not a silver bullet to tackle child poverty, but it will make a difference. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the child poverty taskforce is considering the removal of the two-child cap?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. I can absolutely confirm that the child poverty strategy will be looking at all the levers we need to tackle this really important issue, including in relation to social security. She is impatient for change for her constituents, as am I. We have already put in place a fair repayment rate for universal credit, we are increasing the standard allowance for universal credit for the first time in its history, and we are rolling out free school meals, but I will of course take her representations forward and ensure that they are heard by the taskforce.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

When the Government’s own impact assessment for the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper suggests that 50,000 children will be plunged into poverty and businesses are already slashing vacancies in the light of the Employment Rights Bill, does the Secretary of State really believe that the Government’s child poverty taskforce is pushing in the same direction as the rest of the Government?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman will know that that assessment does not take into account all the steps that we are taking to get more sick and disabled people into work, with the biggest ever investment into support—support that was denied to them by Conservative Members, who wrote people off, consigned them to a life on benefit and then blamed them. We take a different approach. We believe that sick and disabled people should have the same rights, chances and choices to work as anybody else. That will be a key measure in tackling poverty.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the personal independence payment on the ability of disabled people to work.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

Many disabled people want to work, but only 17% of people on personal independence payments are in employment. We believe that disabled people should have the same rights, chances and choices to work as anybody else, which is why we are delivering the biggest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Tories to over £1 billion a year, and it is why we have asked the former boss of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, to review what more we can do to support employers to recruit and retain more disabled people.

[Helen Maguire]

One of my constituents, who has epilepsy, responded to the “Pathways to Work” consultation and highlighted that the questions implied that the Department views PIP as a pity payment, rather than a benefit designed to offset the extra costs of disability, such as seizure alert devices or accessible transport. Without such support, disabled people are less able to live independently. Does the Minister agree that cutting PIP payments simply pushes more disabled people further from living independently and from employment?

[Liz Kendall]

I do not recognise the attitude that the hon. Member describes—quite frankly, we feel precisely the opposite. This vital benefit makes a crucial contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability. That is why we want to reform it to protect it for generations to come, because we do not think that it is sustainable to have a doubling of the number of people on PIP over this decade from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. It is also why we are putting in extra employment support, why we want to support employers to do more to recruit and retain disabled people, and why we want to reform Access to Work—a vital scheme that helps people—because disabled people should have equal rights, chances and choices to work, and that is what we seek to deliver.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning, I had the pleasure of visiting PACT for Autism, a brilliant local charity in Harlow. It raised concerns about the accessibility of the PIP application process for those with autism. As the Department looks to reform the process, could that be considered?

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely will consider that. In fact, I ask my hon. Friend and his constituents to feed into the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing. We have to ensure that it is as easy and effective as possible to access that vital benefit. It is crucial for people with autism, and we want to make it work properly.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the child poverty taskforce on levels of child poverty in Stroud.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What steps she is taking to support severely disabled people who will never be able to work in East Worthing and Shoreham constituency.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

Protecting those who can never work is at the heart of our welfare reforms. That is why, in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, we are ensuring that those with severe, lifelong conditions, which will never improve and which mean they will never work, and those at the end of their lives are guaranteed the higher rate of the universal credit health top-up, protecting one in 10 of all future universal credit health top-up claims. We are also going further by ensuring that those who meet the severe conditions criteria are never again reassessed, in order to stop unnecessary anxiety and stress, helping 200,000 people over this Parliament.

[Tom Rutland]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I have been working with disabled constituents, our local jobcentre and employers to ensure that everyone is working together to maximise opportunities for disabled people, and that they are not just recruited but retained and thriving in jobs locally. However, some people will never be able to work or return to work, including many people with advanced progressive multiple sclerosis, and it is right that they are properly supported. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what support will be in place for people like my constituents living with this disease?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing locally. As I said, those with severe lifelong conditions —progressive conditions that will never improve, and which mean they will never work—will be protected. Even more importantly, they will never again be reassessed for their benefits, removing that unnecessary and unacceptable anxiety and stress, and giving them the dignity and security they deserve.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment. A recent freedom of information request by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that thousands of recipients whose primary health condition is listed as eye disease are set to lose out from the reforms to PIP, with referrals to the RNIB’s counselling services more than doubling since the Secretary of State announced the reforms. There are over 3,500 people in Leicester with sight impairment. What is her Department doing to help those constituents, given these harmful changes to PIP?

[Liz Kendall]

I know the brilliant work that the RNIB does and the brilliant sight services locally in Leicester—I have visited them myself. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that nine out of 10 people who are claiming PIP when these changes come into place will be unaffected by them. We are going to see 750,000 more people claiming PIP by the end of this Parliament compared with when we are elected, and, even with these changes, spending will still be £8 billion higher.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

I am proud of the steps this Labour Government are taking to tackle child poverty. Our historic expansion of free school meals to families on universal credit will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and tackle term-time hunger. That is alongside the £2.5 billion we are investing in the household support fund, and our commitment to funding the holiday activities and food programme, which will tackle holiday hunger too. Making sure that children have hungry minds, not hungry bellies, will help them to fulfil their potential in life, and that is what this Labour Government are all about.

[Callum Anderson]

Closing the disability employment gap is a matter of opportunity for disabled people in my constituency. I recently visited M&M Supplies, a stand-out company in Bletchley, not only for its many exporting successes but because a quarter of its workforce are adults with learning disabilities and difficulties—and that is thanks mainly to the vision of managing director Frank Purcell, who works with organisations like MK SNAP to run a work experience programme for adults with disabilities. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that this Government are committed to working with employers to ensure that no disabled people in my constituency are written off?

[Liz Kendall]

I congratulate, through my hon. Friend, those in his constituency on the fantastic work that he has described. I recently visited an incredible supported internship programme that helps young people with learning disabilities to get work and stay in work, including in our local NHS and with our local hotel voco in the heart of Leicester. This Government are determined to tackle the disability employment gap, which fell under the last Labour Government, although movement stalled under the Tories. We are going to turn this around with the biggest ever investment in employment support, introducing mandatory disability pay gap reporting and looking at what more we can do to support brilliant employers, like the one my hon. Friend described, to recruit and retain more disabled people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?

[Liz Kendall]

I have great personal respect for the hon. Lady but she really needs to make up her mind: first she says our proposals are too late, then she says they are rushed; she criticises us for being cruel, and then says the Opposition are going to vote against our Bill because it does not go far enough. But her deputy, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), has let the cat out of the bag, saying in a recent Westminster Hall debate:

“I am not able to tell…exactly what we would do.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 301WH.]

The truth is that the Conservatives are a broken party with no ideas, let alone a strategy—and, unless they change course, they have no future either.

[Helen Whately]

Goodness me; I asked the right hon. Lady quite a serious question, so that was a very disappointing answer. However, she and I are in agreement that the benefits bill needs to come down, and that will need real reform of the system, so why is she pressing ahead in a panic with her half-baked cuts rather than doing the job properly? We would support a proper rethink of which conditions should get what help, and a better system for people struggling with mental health or neurodiversity, who would be better off in work than parked on benefits. Why did not she make that part of her plan?

[Liz Kendall]

Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing to improve mental health support for people in this country and to make sure that it is treated with equal importance to physical health: we have made significant progress towards recruiting the additional 8,500 mental health workers we said we would recruit in our manifesto to reduce delays and provide support; we have confirmed funding to help an extra 380,000 patients get access to talking therapies; and we are investing the biggest ever amount in employment support for sick and disabled people. I say to the hon. Lady, who left 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, that it is about time she apologised to the country and made up her mind about whether she will back our reforms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I remind Members that topical questions and answers should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. Already this year, we are rolling out £300 million of support through our Get Britain Working plan and Connect to Work. That will rise to £600 million next year and build to an additional £1 billion. This is the biggest ever investment into employment support for sick and disabled people, because we believe work is the route out of poverty. We want to build dignity and a better life for those who can work, while protecting those who cannot.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

T3. Child poverty in my constituency grew from 12.4% in 2015 to 15.5% in 2024: huge growth under the last Government. With the child poverty taskforce due to report soon, can the Secretary of State assure me and my Dartford constituents that child poverty at the end of this Parliament will be lower than it was when it began?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I can. That is a firm commitment from me personally, and from the Prime Minister. We have made a start on that work: our expansion of free school meals to children in all households on universal credit will benefit, I think, around 6,500 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we are helping more people into work, which is the best way to tackle poverty in the long term. We have a long way to go, but we are absolutely committed to bringing those numbers down.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T4. Some 40% of people in West Dorset who are in receipt of a personal independence payment receive the highest level of support. Many are extremely anxious about PIP assessments being carried out over the phone rather than in person, particularly those with complex or fluctuating conditions. Will the Minister guarantee that anyone who wants an in-person assessment will receive one?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we absolutely want that to happen. Indeed, we want to record the assessments as standard to ensure that claimants have confidence in what is being done. This is an issue that causes huge anxiety among my constituents. Too many decisions take too long and are overturned, and we want to deal with these problems head-on.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

T5. When the under-25 universal credit rate was first introduced, the justification for it was that young people were more likely to be living at home, but there is a group—care-experienced young people—for whom that is often not the case. A transformational decision by this Government would be to build on and go further in the work that we are already doing with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and decisions at the spending review by making this change for that very important group of young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

T7. Emma from Tring is one of my constituents who has said that these changes to disability benefits will mean that they will have to come out of a career in the NHS. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those who are terrified about losing their work after changes to disability allowance?

[Liz Kendall]

Nine out of 10 people who are on PIP when the changes come in will be unaffected by the end of this Parliament. Anybody who is affected will keep that benefit for three months—that is, I think, one of the longest transitional protections ever and certainly three times as long as when we move from disability living allowance to PIP. The important Access to Work fund is there precisely to help anybody who needs that sort of support to get into work. We will guarantee that during those three months, anyone who is affected and who uses their PIP for work will get access to an adviser who will help them to apply for Access to Work, because it is so important that we support them.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. With 800,000 people not going to be in receipt of PIP by 2029-30, we have to be honest in this House. We all know, don’t we, that many of those people are just not able to access the healthcare that they need, such as for mental health, neurodiversity and physical health? As a result, they will not be able to work, but they will be pushed into poverty because of these reforms. Will the Secretary of State please, please, please pause these reforms to ensure that those people, who have desperate health needs, are not forced into poverty?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend will know that this Labour Government are investing billions extra into the NHS precisely so that we can drive down waits for vital operations and increase the number of people getting mental health treatment. It is also the case that good work is good for physical and mental health. There is very clear evidence on that, and that is one of the things we know that we can achieve with the £1 billion extra a year in employment support.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Matching the Scottish child payment by raising the child element of universal credit would bring more than half a million children out of poverty. The Secretary of State has been clear that a lot of issues are being considered by the child poverty taskforce. Is raising the child element of universal credit to the level of the Scottish child payment one of those matters?

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to support disabled people in receipt of personal independence payments.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

Personal independence payments are a crucial benefit that makes a contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability. I know how anxious many people are when there is talk about reform, but this Government want to ensure that PIP is there for people who need it now and into the future. In our Green Paper we promised to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts, and we are starting the first phase of that review today. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be inviting in stakeholders this week to develop the scope and terms of reference of this review, and will keep the House updated as this work progresses.

[Imran Hussain]

Many of the 41,000 disabled people in Bradford who rely on PIP to live with dignity and stability are rightly horrified by these proposed cuts. In particular, the four-point rule has the potential to devastate the lives of tens of thousands of people in Bradford overnight. Let us be clear: these plans would take away a vital lifeline from those with the greatest need living in the most deprived areas of Britain. I cannot support any cuts that worsen inequalities in places such as Bradford, so I say to the Minister in absolute sincerity: please listen to the growing calls in this place and out there to scrap these unfair cuts and instead do the right thing by taxing the super-rich so that they can pay their fair share.

[Liz Kendall]

I hear very clearly what my hon. Friend says, but I also want to be clear to the House: if people can never work, we want to protect them; if people can work, we want to support them. The truth is that a disabled person who is in work is half as likely to be poor as one who is out of work. We want to improve people’s chances and choices by supporting those who can work to do so and by protecting those who cannot.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The personal independence payment does what it says on the tin: it is designed to enable people to live an independent life. As someone who has represented constituents in tribunal appeals, I know only too well that, while there are many who should not be claiming PIP, there are also many whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent. Will the Minister assure me that she will use the utmost care and sensitivity before taking any further decisions?

[Liz Kendall]

I can absolutely reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we will make these changes carefully. We are consulting with disabled people and the organisations that represent them about what support can be available for anyone who loses out. We will be consulting with disabled people about how to build our £1 billion a year employment support programme, and we will make sure that those who can never work will be protected, including by making sure that they do not have to go through reassessment repeatedly, which has been the situation so far.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that there will be a full review of PIP in consultation with disabled people and their organisations. PIP was designed 13 years ago, but since then we have increased our understanding of the impact that fluctuating conditions and mental health problems can have on disabled people’s ability to live independently. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is certainly past time for a review of the PIP system to ensure that mental health problems are fully understood and that the fluctuating nature of some conditions is properly taken into account?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is more than a decade since PIP was introduced, and there have been changes in the prevalence of disability, in the nature of long-term conditions, in wider society and in the workplace too. We have also seen a real increase in recent years in the numbers of younger people and those with mental health conditions, so it is right that we now have a review of the PIP assessment process. This is a highly sensitive issue, and it will take time, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability and I will be doing this in consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, and we will begin inviting them in from this week. I also very much hope that all Members of Parliament can feed into this process, including with the organisations in their own constituencies.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of our concerns around the changes and the damages they could do to the most vulnerable. She will also be aware of the implications for the Scottish Government who administer this. Will she at least give me the assurance that the full details about how the changes will interact with devolved powers will come before a vote is brought to this Chamber?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman’s figures are the number of people right now who may have fewer than four points on PIP. These changes are not coming in overnight—they would not be implemented until November next year—and many people’s health conditions change, so it is not right to say that that is the exact number who would lose out. We want to ensure that anyone who does lose out has their eligible care and health needs met, as well as having the employment support they need. We know that many disabled people want to work. They have too often been denied opportunities to get into work, and this Government want to change that.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Makerfield constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

6. What progress her Department has made on its review of the personal independence payment assessment system.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

As I said in response to an earlier question, it is over a decade since PIP was introduced and there have been significant shifts in the nature of disability and long-term conditions in this country, as well as changes in wider society and the workplace. That is why our Green Paper announced our plans to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others. We are starting that work today, inviting key organisations representing disabled people in to discuss the terms of reference, which we will publish, and we will continue to keep the House updated as our work progresses.

[Richard Burgon]

There has rightly been a lot of focus on the 250,000 people the Government’s own impact assessment says will be pushed into poverty by this cruel disability benefit cut, but the true impact on poverty will be even worse. New DWP figures, obtained from a freedom of information request, show that 700,000 families already in poverty will be hit even harder. It is wrong that that has had to come out through a freedom of information request, so will the Minister come clean today about the true scale of poverty that this disastrous policy will cause? Does it not fly in the face of what a Labour Government are meant to do—lift people out of poverty, not push them further into poverty?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend will know, as we have been very clear with the House, that those figures do not take into consideration the number of disabled people who we believe will find work through our biggest ever investment in employment support, Pathways to Work. Neither do they take into consideration the huge strides we will make with our forthcoming child poverty strategy. We have been more open and transparent than any previous Government, publishing all the poverty impact and other detailed assessments, because we are very happy to have this debate in the House and to put forward our case. Our mission is to get as many people as we can into work and on in their careers, with more income and better choices and chances: that is what a Labour Government are for.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

My consistent, Louisa, wrote to me about her PIP assessment. She suffers from a number of debilitating fluctuating conditions. Her assessment took over two hours and the assessor ignored her explanations, did not ask how she felt afterwards and threatened to end the call when her words were misinterpreted, which goes against DWP guidance. Will the Secretary of State undertake to review how fluctuating and invisible conditions are handled in the assessment process?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, and I would really like the hon. Lady to send in that information and we will go through it with a fine-toothed comb.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about what assessments she has made of the impact on public services, particularly adult social care, of the move to change personal independence payments. In my local authority, the director has said to me that she is deeply concerned about the additional costs and about moving people into dependency, as their independence is removed. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment has been made and provide figures to demonstrate that?

[Liz Kendall]

Our objective is to give disabled people more independence by ensuring that those who can work have the support to do so. We have clear evidence that being in work is good for people’s health: good work is good for people’s physical and mental health. We are investing extra money into social care, including an additional £3.7 million this year, on top of the £26 billion extra for the NHS. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, as I know she is passionate about ensuring that people have the help, care and support that they need and deserve.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told me that cutting back on PIP eligibility was in line with post-war Labour principles, but more and more Labour Members are saying that that policy—balancing the Government’s books on the backs of disabled people and those who care for them—is cruel and wrong in principle. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is right?

[Liz Kendall]

I do not recognise the way the hon. Lady framed the Prime Minister’s answer. We want a social security system that protects those who can never and will never work, but disabled people who are out of work and economically inactive are more likely than non-disabled people to say they want to work, and if they are in work, they are half as likely to be poor. We want to shift the focus of the system to do more to help people who can work to do so, and to protect those who cannot, because that is the way that we give people a better future.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Kensington and Bayswater constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

Since our last Question Time, Work and Pensions Ministers and local leaders have launched eight of our 17 Get Britain Working trailblazer programmes across the UK, backed by £240 million of additional investment. These include South Yorkshire’s brilliant plans to get people back to health and back to work; five trailblazers in London, including specialist support for young care leavers and those with musculoskeletal conditions; joining up health and employment support in Blaenau Gwent, Denbighshire and Neath Port Talbot in Wales; and our youth guarantee in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. There is still much more that we need to do, but we have already made real progress in unlocking people’s potential and getting Britain working and growing again.

[Greg Smith]

One of my constituents is experiencing severe delays in getting Access to Work scheme payments, dating back to February. In correspondence with the Department, a letter openly says there is no long-term solution to that, so when will the Secretary of State come forward with a long-term solution to speed up these payments?

[Liz Kendall]

I really thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and we do actually have a plan right now. It was announced in our Green Paper that we are going to reform Access to Work. It is a brilliant support, with a grant or money to help people with physical aids and adaptations, and other support, to get work and to stay in work. I would encourage him to input into the review, and either I or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability would be more than happy to meet him to hear his views about how we can make this work for his constituent.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

T3. According to Sense, there are over 2,500 people with complex needs in North West Cambridgeshire, many of whom will never be able to work because of their conditions. Does the Minister agree that dignity for severely disabled people needs to be a priority for the welfare system, and can he update the House on progress towards ensuring that people whose conditions mean they will never be able to work are no longer subject to the appalling repeated reassessments that we saw all too often under the previous Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Liz Kendall]

It is quite interesting to get that question from the shadow Secretary of State, since under her Government the employment rate did not get back to where it was pre-covid—the only country in the G7 not to do so. She left 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and she left near record numbers of people—2.8 million—out of work due to long-term sickness. Businesses are still desperate to recruit. We are overhauling the system to ensure that people get the support they need.

[Helen Whately]

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I can answer it, if she will not. It means that businesses have stopped hiring, the growing economy that we left is being hammered by the Government’s jobs tax, and thousands of young people are leaving school and university with worse prospects than this time last year. Businesses need a Government who understand them and back them—that is what jobs depend on. She needs businesses to hire people so she can hit her employment target. What is her message to them?

[Liz Kendall]

The shadow Secretary of State fails to recognise that job vacancies were falling under her Government. I would say to her that we are inundated with businesses that are desperate to recruit and to get young people the skills they need. I met a whole group of businesses in Leicestershire last week who are really keen to work with us. I suggest the hon. Lady takes a good, long, hard look at her own party’s record—the number of people she left on the scrapheap—say sorry and get her own policies right first.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

T4. I have been in touch with a constituent who has a disability and needs help with showering and dressing. She is concerned that, under our proposed reforms, she will not score enough points to continue receiving the daily living portion of PIP. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that the Government are reviewing the PIP assessment, including the descriptors, but can she confirm that cases like that of my constituent will be considered as part of the review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T6. The Government claim to be the party of business, but speak to businesses today and they are hurting. Reduced opportunities for wealth creation and entrepreneurship, employee national insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill are destroying opportunity. What are the Government doing to incentivise our wealth creators and encourage job creation?

[Liz Kendall]

The Government are providing the stability that businesses desperately need. We are working to transform skills in this country—that is absolutely what most businesses say to me they are desperately short of. We are overhauling our job centres, so that we actually serve businesses’ needs. I would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it was under his party that we saw the lowest business investment in the G7. We are going to overhaul that and make this the best country in which to start up and grow a business.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T9. What assessment has the Minister made of the merits of increasing local housing allowance to alleviate the pressure on housing authorities?

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T7. Helping more people off welfare and into work will require the support and good will of employers, which I fear those on the Government Benches do not fully recognise. How will the Minister achieve that move, having clobbered businesses with the jobs tax, which covers all sectors of businesses, hospices, charities and many employers?

[Liz Kendall]

As I said in response to an earlier question, we are overhauling the way that the Department for Work and Pensions supports employers. We think it is unacceptable that only one in six businesses has ever used a jobcentre to recruit. We are changing that, including by having a single account manager for businesses, so that they do not have to tell their story time and again. We are overhauling skills in this country, reforming the apprenticeship, and extending the number of sector-based work academy programmes and short skills programmes that businesses desperately want. I know that businesses are desperately keen to engage with us, because they want to recruit, and it is about time that the right hon. Lady’s party started listening to businesses.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

I have been asked by many of my Livingston constituents for reassurance on the Government’s proposed welfare changes. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that these reforms will genuinely help people into decent, secure work, all the while protecting those who clearly cannot work due to ill health or disability?

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that that is what we intend to do. Our employment Bill is about ensuring that we improve the quality of jobs, give greater security to people and bring about more flexible working that will benefit sick and disabled people. We are investing £1 billion in employment support to make sure that disabled people have the chances and choices they deserve. Through our review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, we are changing the workplace to make it more inclusive, because the Labour party is absolutely about ensuring that disabled people who can work have the right to do so.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

T8. Carers UK reports that unpaid carers are still receiving debt notices over carer’s allowance. Between May 2024 and February 2025, the number of notices increased by 9,000, so we are now talking about 144,000 people. Will the Secretary of State halt the creation of those overpayment debts until her independent review has taken place and the recommendations are implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My constituents are extremely concerned about changes to the PIP assessment system, and particularly how they will affect people with mental health issues and fluctuating long-term conditions. Those people may not be able to show the required evidence of how their ability to function is impacted, since their experiences do not always fit within the daily living and mobility assessment criteria. Can the Minister assure me that the assessment system will be updated to take those genuine challenges into account?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[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?

[Liz Kendall]

Our reforms to Access to Work are not about savings; they are about ensuring that this brilliant service is available to more people in future. We are also looking at how it might be delivered—whether it will continue to be delivered through the Department, or through an arm’s length body—or, indeed, an organisation run by and for disabled people. This is a big opportunity to make changes to a brilliant programme, and I know that the Select Committee will engage with us on this.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the financial reparations that will be made to LGBT veterans following the Etherton review are not taken into consideration when assessing entitlement to other benefits?

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

South Shields will be the 15th most negatively impacted constituency if the Government’s proposed welfare changes go ahead, yet there are no in-person consultation events in the north-east at all. Can my right hon. Friend please rectify that?

[Liz Kendall]

I will absolutely take that away to look at it.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

So many disabled members of society are unable to demonstrate the minimum academic requirements to get on to many courses, or to secure employment. What steps are the Government taking to support those people, so that they can demonstrate vocational and non-academic competencies, and get the jobs that they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Today is World ME Day, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her Ministers will recognise the up to 1.3 million people who live with ME and ME-like symptoms, and some of those with long covid. All they want is to have a normal life. I recognise what she has said about making PIP work for fluctuating conditions. Can I ask her to work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to put aside research funding, so that money is available to ensure that those who would love nothing more than to live a normal life and go to work can get better?

[Liz Kendall]

I will certainly discuss that with the Health Secretary. We have a joint work and health programme and team, who are really trying to join these two issues up. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) has made her point very strongly in the House, and I am sure that she will do so again at Health and Social Care questions.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Middlesbrough Disabled Supporters Association does vital work to support disabled Boro fans, but it is currently being hammered by increased bank charges. Will the Minister for Disability work across Government to help take these banks to task so that non-profit disability groups such as the MDSA can continue their important work?

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Labour Government were elected on a mandate for change—to create more good jobs in every corner of the country, to drive up living standards for working people and to get our vital public services back on their feet. Delivering our plan for change means ensuring that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is wisely spent and goes to those in genuine need. That is what this legislation will help to deliver, with the biggest-ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse.

It is unacceptable that the Conservative Government allowed fraud against the public sector to spiral to £55 billion a year. That includes a staggering £7.4 billion a year of benefit fraud alone. It is unforgiveable that they failed to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority was fit for purpose, or to properly update the DWP’s anti-fraud powers for 14 long years. When we think of all the new ways in which fraudsters and scam artists rip people off, including by using data and technology, that simply beggars belief. Today we say: no more.

Our Bill updates the powers of the Public Sector Fraud Authority so that it can effectively fight fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public authorities. It also makes vital upgrades to the DWP’s fraud powers and sets out new powers to investigate fraud, so that for the first time, our serious and organised crime investigators can apply to the court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters, and can seize evidence such as computers and phones. There are updated powers to gather information, so that we can compel third parties such as airlines to give us information, and can require it to be delivered electronically, so that we can tackle fraud as quick as possible. Our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to get crucial data from banks and financial institutions to check if people are getting money they are not entitled to, and if they have more savings than the rules allow, or are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK.

The Bill extends financial penalties to people who have fraudulently claimed any type of DWP payment, including grants and loans, not just benefits, and it gives us new powers to get money back from people who can pay but who have repeatedly failed to do so, bringing our powers in line with those of other parts of Government, such as the Child Maintenance Service and HMRC. All this is being done in a fair and proportionate way; the measures are tightly defined in the legislation, and there are strong safeguards and independent oversight, including through annual reports to Parliament and codes of practice, which we will bring forward in Committee in the other place.

I thank the Minister for Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, for steering the Bill through its Committee and Report stages, supported by excellent civil servants and House of Commons staff. I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee from right across the House for their detailed questions and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill. They have done this country a good service, because this Bill provides us with the tools we need to tackle modern fraud in the benefit system and across the public sector, helping to save £1.5 billion over the next five years as part of the DWP’s wider action to save a total of £9.6 billion from benefit fraud and error.

People who work hard and play by the rules, and people who depend on our public services and vital benefits, deserve to have trust and faith in the system, and they are rightly angry when they see people abuse it. Our message is clear: if you knowingly defraud the benefit system or cheat our public services, whether you are a large or small company, a criminal gang or an individual, we will find you; we will stop you; and we will get our money back. This Labour Government will restore trust and fairness in the system and ensure that every pound of public money delivers for the British people and our country. I commend this legislation to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Households Below Average Income: Statistics Release

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has today published its annual statistics on incomes and living standards covering 2023-24.

This includes households below average income (HBAI), which contains estimates of household incomes and a range of low-income indicators for 2023-24, derived from the family resources survey.

Further publications in today’s release are: income dynamics, pensioners’ income series, children in low-income families, improving lives indicators, separated families statistics and the family resources survey. These publications cover the four statutory measures of child poverty required to be published by DWP under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

Today’s statistics underline how poverty and hardship increased substantially under the last Government. A total of 1.2 million more people were living in relative poverty after housing costs in 2023-24 than in 2010-11. That includes 900,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in poverty.

The statistics also show that median household incomes fell by 2% in 2023-24 compared to the year before, both before and after housing costs. Child poverty saw the biggest increases between 2022-23 and 2023-24, rising across all four measures: relative and absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs.

Nearly 1 in 5 children—2.6 million—were living in a food insecure household in 2023-24, up from 17% to 18% on the previous year. The number of individuals in households using a food bank in the previous 12 months increased by 500,000 to 2.8 million people in 2023-24, over 4% of the population. These are the highest numbers since records began.

The levels of poverty and food insecurity we inherited are unacceptable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children and over a million pensioners out of poverty. This active Government are determined to drive down poverty, drive up living standards, and grow the economy—this Government’s No.1 priority.

We know that good work is the best route out of poverty. That is why, since the election, we have hit the ground running to get Britain working:

Delivering the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation with our £240 million get Britain working plan: creating a new jobs and careers service, giving Mayors and local leaders new powers and resources to join up work, health and skills support to drive down economic inactivity; and delivering a new youth guarantee so that all 18 to 22-year-olds in England are earning or learning.

Setting out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system to protect people who need support and help those who can into employment through our Pathways to Work Green Paper—including £1 billion a year in employment, skills and health support for disabled people.

Creating more good jobs in every part of the country in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy.

Investing almost £26 billion in the health and social care system to get people back to health and back to work;

Alongside this, we have taken action to support people on the lowest incomes and those struggling the most, including by:

Boosting the national minimum wage for 3 million of the lowest paid full-time workers, putting up to £2,500 a year in their pockets from this April.

Announcing a permanent, above inflation rise to the standard allowance in universal credit, for the first time ever—increasing it from £92 per week in 2025-26 to £106 per week by 2029-30.

Introducing from April a new fair repayment rate that caps the level of debt repayments that can be taken from universal credit. This puts £420 a year on average into the pockets of 1.2 million of the poorest households.

Extending the household support fund in England until 31 March 2026, with £742 million for local authorities to help families and pensioners facing hardship and additional Barnett funding for the devolved Governments.

Poverty scars the lives and life chances of our children—because you cannot fulfil your potential without food in your belly or a decent roof over your head. So, in addition, we are bringing forward a child poverty strategy to ensure every child has the best start in life.

With our commitment to the triple lock, we are also protecting pensioners who have worked all their lives and deserve security in retirement. Unlike the previous Government, who left over 800,000 pensioners missing out on the pension credit they were entitled to, we are protecting the poorest pensioners by delivering the biggest ever drive to increase uptake. This has seen an 81% increase in applications since July 2024 compared with the same period last year, and 46,000 more awards compared with that period.

Today’s statistics serve to underscore the chances and choices that were denied by the last Government and our determination to support those who are struggling and unleash the potential of the British people.

[HCWS553]

Welfare Reform

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. She and I agree on one thing: the welfare bill is too high. Left unchecked, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. Spending more on sickness benefits than we do on defence is not the sign of a strong country.

This is not just a question of money. We have 3 million people of working-age who are not in work due to ill health, not filling the roles businesses need, not contributing to our economy and not fulfilling their own potential. The best way to get the welfare bill down is to get people off benefits and into work. That is what we did year after year after taking office in 2010. Despite the once-in-a-century pandemic, 4 million more people were in employment when we left office than when we inherited Labour’s mess. Before the pandemic, economic inactivity was at an historic low, but it is true that we then started to see a new phenomenon: growing numbers of people, and—particularly worryingly—young people, claiming sickness benefits. A system set up with good intentions to protect the most vulnerable in society has over time morphed into something broader, driven in part by a well-intentioned but not always helpful medicalisation of life’s ups and downs.

In government, we identified the problem and worked up plans to tackle it, but at every point Labour Members opposed them. In fact, the now Chancellor said that not one single penny could be saved from benefits. When they came into office, not only did they cancel or delay pretty much everything we handed over, but they had no plans of their own. They walked into the Department with empty notebooks. All they had done in opposition was oppose, instead of the hard work of coming up with their own answers. That is why the country has had to wait another eight months for this announcement. In that time, taxpayers have shelled out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, and nearly half a million people have been signed off sick. In fact, 60 people were signed on to sickness benefits while the Secretary of State was talking.

None the less, I have been looking forward to hearing what the right hon. Lady would announce today and which of the many things briefed to the media her spinning policy wheel would eventually land on. Governing is hard—we know that. In the last few weeks, the Government have made it look really hard, but that is nothing compared with how hard life can be for a severely disabled person, somebody for whom getting up, getting dressed and getting breakfast—things most of us found easy this morning—are hard if not impossible. For some people, the last few weeks have been deeply frightening. They will be glad of the uncertainty finally ending.

I genuinely want the right hon. Lady to succeed, and I welcome her commitment today to increasing the number of reassessments and to having more of them face to face and recorded. I welcome the investment in employment support for disabled people. I welcome, of course, her reannouncing a host of things that we were doing in government. Scrapping the work capability assessment and creating a single assessment is already Government policy that is due to come in in 2026-27. Her big idea seems to be to delay that until 2028. Merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited higher rate is a proposal that we worked up in government. We launched a consultation on tightening up eligibility for PIP and, by the way, we would have gone much further with that. We consulted on ending reassessments for people whose health conditions will not improve, and the right to try guarantee sounds remarkably similar to our chance to work guarantee. Of course, on the Secretary of State’s continued support for WorkWell, I launched that programme with the now shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). In fact, the only original idea I can see in the entire announcement is increasing the rate of unemployment benefits—a Labour policy if ever I have heard one.

This is a now-or-never chance to seize the moment—a now or never for millions of people who will otherwise be signed off for what could end up being a lifetime on benefits—but today’s announcement leaves me with more questions than answers. How many people will be helped back into work and by when? Surely we have not been waiting eight months for just another Green Paper. Where is the fit note reform crucial to stem the flow of people on to benefits? Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Why is the right hon. Lady planning to save only £5 billion when the bill is forecast to rise to over £100 billion? Do the savings she is announcing today include the £5 billion we had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, she has made virtually no savings of her own. What is the net saving given the additional expenditure planned?

Fundamentally, this is too little, too late. The fact is that £5 billion just does not cut it with a bill so big going up so fast. She needed to be tougher. She should be saying, “No more hard-working taxpayers funding the family next-door not to work, no free top-of-the-range cars for people who do not need them, no more sickfluencers helping people to claim money they do not need.”

Before the right hon. Lady puts on her angry voice and leans across the Dispatch Box to shout at me about “14 years”, I gently say to her that everybody in this Chamber and around the country knows that we lost and Labour won. Her job now is to govern and mine is to hold her to account. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. It is good for the taxpayer, good for the economy and good for the individual and their family, who benefit from security, dignity and purpose that work brings, and it means that those who genuinely cannot work get the support that they deserve.

The fact is that fewer people work under Labour. That has happened every time Labour has been in office, and it is already happening now. The Government should have taken their time in opposition to come up with meaningful reforms, but they did not, and the country is already paying the price.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need extra investment in the NHS and to overhaul the culture of the DWP, and that is precisely what we are doing. We are investing an additional £26 billion into the NHS, an extra £172 million into the disabled facilities grant to help disabled people to live independently, and £3.7 billion into social care, which is such an important issue.

We need a decisive cultural shift in the DWP. That is why our Get Britain Working plans include proposals to overhaul jobcentres. We have also said today that we need to look fundamentally at our safeguarding approach. Our Pathways to Work programme is genuinely just that. For some people, getting out of the house is an achievement; for others, it is maybe going along to a community group, doing voluntary action or getting skills. That is what we mean, and we will work closely not only with the NHS and social care—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—but with voluntary organisations, which have such a vital role in helping people on to a pathway to success.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that no one is on the scrapheap when it comes to work and that everyone gets the support that they need. I note that she is consulting on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until the age of 22. Will she explain the rationale for that age, and what savings does she expect to make if that consultation goes forward?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. Patience is not my greatest virtue, but Members will need to wait until the spring statement for the OBR’s full assessment of individual measures and the savings they make. On delaying access to the health top-up for people under 22, there will be a specific exemption for those who are never able to work because their disability is so severe. This is all about matching it with our youth guarantee, announced in the Get Britain Working plan, to make sure every young person is earning or learning. If someone is not in education, employment or training when they are young, the impact can be lifelong and scarring on their health, job prospects and earnings, so we have to put that right.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

How precisely will these benefit cuts be realised, given this Government’s anti-business Budget, which has seen businesses close at the fastest rate since Labour was last in office? Of those still standing, 30% are planning to cut staff to cope with the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. Where are the jobs? We know Labour is the party of the magic money tree; is Labour now the party of the magic jobs tree, too?

[Liz Kendall]

The only party that believes in magic money is the Conservative party, who wrote a cheque that they could not pay. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe that good work and rights at work are of benefit to businesses, because the best businesses know that they help retain people and reduce the costs of recruitment. We are overhauling our approach in the DWP to employers, because only one in six ever uses a jobcentre to recruit. We want to have a single account manager for all businesses. We are going to make sure our jobcentres are much more embedded in their local communities, so that they have detailed knowledge of individual employers. That is the way that we get Britain working and growing again.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

When the Government made the decision to go down this route, did they understand the pain and difficulty that it will cause millions of our constituents who are using food banks and social supermarkets? These people are on the brink. This £5 billion cut is going to impact them more than her Department gives credence to. I would like to be able to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that this is going to work for them. As things stand, my constituents, my friends and my family are very angry about this, and they do not think this is the kind of action that a Labour Government take.

[Liz Kendall]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but let me say this to him. I have spent years chairing Feeding Leicester, the programme to end hunger in my city, and I know that I can look my constituents in the eye and say to them: I know that getting more people into better paid jobs is the key to their future success, and I know that dealing with their mental health problems, which are so prevalent, is essential. If someone can work, we will give them the help to get back on their feet, because that is the long-term route to tackling poverty and tackling inequality, which is what this Labour party is all about.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Like the Secretary of State, I was elected in 2010, and I need to tell her that our recollections differ. When I came into this role, after 13 years of Labour government, 7.5% of young people in the Gosport constituency were not in education, employment or training. That number was down to 3% last year. Since Labour has taken office, 83,000 more people across this country of working age are now unemployed. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across our constituencies, from adult social care to childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of her Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. Surely the two are mutually incompatible.

[Liz Kendall]

Unless we cut waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS, people cannot get back to health and back to work—many employers have said to me that they are deeply concerned about that—and that is the reason we are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS. We are dealing with precisely those key sectors—health and social care, construction and so on—where employers want people with the skills to do those jobs. We are overhauling our approach in DWP and setting up sector-based work academy programmes specifically tailored to employers’ needs. I know there is more we need to do to work with employers and help them get people back into work, and that is what this Government will deliver.

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

After 14 years of Conservative failure, there is a 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people in this country. We must therefore ensure that the social model of disability is central to Government decision making, to achieve inclusive growth that enables disabled people to fulfil their potential. I welcome the Secretary of State’s proactive approach to reasonable adjustments and the £1 billion support package to get disabled people back into work where they can work, as well as her recognition that PIP is designed as an in-work benefit to enable people to live independently. Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches massively outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. What work has she done to develop inclusive growth strategies across all employment sectors, to close the disability employment gap and the disability pay gap?

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. At the heart of our mission is providing equal rights and choices for disabled people to work. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to develop our pathways to work employment support so that we get it right, because we will not do that unless we work closely with disabled people. We are also working right across Government—we have disability Ministers in every single Department who are driving this agenda forward—and I know that my hon. Friend will give much valued advice and help to make sure we get it right in every part of Government.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Encouraging and enabling people to get back to work is a laudable aim, but how can the Secretary of State assume £5 billion of success in advance of actually rolling out the programme? Surely the right approach is to let the reforms generate savings naturally by a concrete reduction in need, rather than to set an arbitrary target beforehand.

[Liz Kendall]

We are not setting an arbitrary target. We are fixing a broken system, and we are taking action immediately, because we believe we have to put in place employment support, health support and social care support at the same time as fixing a broken benefits system. I always start with people—what do we need to do to give people the opportunities they deserve if they can work? What do we need to do to make sure the social security system lasts? We cannot put that off any longer, because it is not good enough for the people we were elected to serve.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

PIP is a devolved benefit, known as the adult disability payment in Scotland. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will work with partners, including the Scottish Government, to ensure that disabled people across the whole UK get the support they need?

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely—that is very important for me personally and for the Government as a whole. We want people in Scotland to have the same chances and choices to work if they can as everybody else and to make sure people have proper protections. That is essential for us, and I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government, as I know other Departments will.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Youth unemployment stood at 642,000 as of the last quarter of 2024—a rise of 136,000 on 2023—with a youth unemployment rate of 14.8%. The Secretary of State talked about earning and learning. Does she agree that one way of attracting some people back into work would be to get more young people into His Majesty’s armed forces—the Air Force, the Navy and the Army—and will she discuss that with the Defence Secretary?

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree. Indeed, before I was appointed to this position, as a constituency MP in opposition I discussed with my local jobcentre and the armed forces recruitment team precisely these issues, because the exciting careers and opportunities that are available are really important for young people in my constituency and the right hon. Gentleman’s. I will certainly have more conversations with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make sure we put this plan into action.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I have heard many people make a moral case for the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but does she agree that over the last 20 years those with large amounts of wealth have done extremely well while average household incomes have stagnated and the standard of living for the overwhelming majority has gone down? So while we make a moral case for changes to the benefits system, should we not also be making the case for how we can tax wealth as opposed to income?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, which is why I am very proud that we have closed loopholes in the non-dom tax status, looked at the profits of the energy companies and tackled issues in many other areas. Fairness in the tax system is an absolute principle of the Labour party.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Government say they will not change our fiscal rules because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their tax policies because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their position on the single market because of their manifesto. Perhaps the Secretary of State could outline to me and to people right across the UK where in her manifesto it stated that they were going to take £5 billion away from disabled people?

[Liz Kendall]

I am very happy to send a highlighted version of our manifesto to the right hon. Gentleman, where we said we would reform or replace the WCA, we said we would make sure we dealt with the backlogs in Access to Work, we said we would make work pay, we said we would invest more in the NHS, we said we would improve employment rights, and we said we would create jobs in every part of the country. I am very proud that we are delivering on it and I just ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a look at what is happening in Scotland and at the Scottish Government’s record, because there is probably more they could do.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend announce additional investment in high quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work and the recognition that for so many it is indeed a pathway, not just a series of referrals that merely lead back to square one. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that joint working with local support services like those in Clwyd North, which are already doing great work, will form part of this reform so that a truly local, person-centred approach can be achieved?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. We will not get this right unless we draw on the huge strengths of our voluntary and community organisations. I have never believed that there are hard-to-reach groups; it is just that we need to change what we do. There is a lot we can learn from groups like those my hon. Friend mentions, because it really is a pathway to work. We have got to end this false divide between those who can and cannot work, and instead understand that there are steps towards a better life. That is what this Government want to deliver.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I have two practical questions. First, the Secretary of State said she is joining jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance; what is that time limit? Secondly, she said there would be an expectation on people to look for work; what happens when they do not meet that expectation and what discipline is faced if they do not take that up?

[Liz Kendall]

The time limit is one of the things we are consulting on in the Green Paper and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views on that. On the expectation to engage, it is interesting that when we have started to free up our work coach time and offer support on the phone and in person, many people have come forward, because we are trying to change the culture. The Conservatives always leap straight to a position where people refuse to get involved. We have got to change that culture; that is the way that we will get more people on to that pathway to success.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that many disabled and sick people want to work, but the reality is that cutting PIP will not address the reasons why they do not. She outlined that the reasonable adjustments framework for disabled people is very hard to navigate. It took me six months to navigate it for a member of my staff here in the place where we legislate, so how hard is it going to be for disabled people in the workplace to try to get employers to make those adjustments? Will the Secretary of State outline how she is going to make sure that the workplace is ready for the people who will be accessing it? Can she reassure me about the disability employment gap, which in a sense has nothing to do with benefits, but is to do with the reasonable adjustments that are not being made at the moment?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of these issues and she is right: we have to do far more to work with employers to ensure that those basic reasonable adjustments are made. That is one of the issues that Sir Charlie Mayfield is looking at in our “Keep Britain Working” review, precisely because we know that good employers understand the need to make these changes. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to go through this in more detail because she is right: we have to get this absolutely nailed.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

First it was the pensioners and their winter fuel allowance, then it was the WASPI women and broken promises, and now it is the sick and the vulnerable. We believe in protecting the taxpayer but also in protecting those who need our support the most, yet there was not a word about abuse or about those who are taking money out of the system when they are not entitled to it. How can the Secretary of State rationalise in her own mind saying in the statement that, on the one hand, she accepts that people’s health and wellbeing can fluctuate but that, on the other hand, she is going to do away with the accumulation of points? To require an applicant to get four points in any one box does away with the ability to recognise that mental ill health in particular manifests itself in many different ways. That accumulation of points has been incredibly important in getting support for those who need it most. If it fluctuates, how come she is doing away with that accumulation?

[Liz Kendall]

There is very clear evidence that good work is good for mental health. That is the case for people with anxiety and depression, but also for those with more severe conditions such as psychosis and schizophrenia. There is really clear evidence from the NHS individual placement and support programme that if we can help people get into work, that is not only better for them and their incomes, but it reduces their relapses and spending on the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman asks how I rationalise this; I do so because I am not prepared to accept a system that is miserable for people, that traps them in poverty, and that denies them the chances and support they deserve. I am also not prepared to accept an inexorable rise in costs and spending, much of which is on the costs of failure, precisely because I want to ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I think all Government Members understand the scale of the financial bin fire left by the previous Government, but there are those who are worried and are seeking assurances at home. For the 1 million people potentially losing disability support, what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give that those who are unable to feed or toilet themselves will not lose out on personal care? For the 1 million who can and do want to work, of course we welcome that £1 billion of extra support, but how are the Government going to hold unco-operative employers’ feet to the fire in giving disabled people an equal chance of employment and career success?

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with my hon. Friend: I know people are worried and concerned and that is a really important issue. It is why I disagreed with the Opposition spokesman saying that we need to be tough; I am not interested in that because this is about real people and real lives. The changes to PIP are not coming in immediately; they will be coming in from November 2026 for new claimants. Those with severe conditions who will never work will be protected. If people do have a reassessment, it will be done by a fully trained assessor or a healthcare professional and will be based on their individual needs. In order to ensure there is greater confidence in those assessors and the decisions that are being taken, we will overhaul our safeguarding and training and we will record those assessments as standard, because that is essential.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Because working is so beneficial to mental health, will the Secretary of State require claimants to undertake socially useful work in order to retain their benefits?

[Liz Kendall]

No.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for listening to disabled people and their organisations about ending needless, wasteful and extremely expensive repeat reassessments for those with progressive conditions. I hope that has been welcomed by those who have campaigned for it for many years. Will the Green Paper include plans to tackle the disincentives to work for disabled people and others in supported housing? If they work for more than 15 hours a week, it can result in financial penalties. That system was not only ignored by the Conservatives, but actually put in place by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in coalition, when they fumbled the introduction of universal credit. Will this Government fix tax allowances to ensure that work always pays, including for disabled people in supported housing?

[Liz Kendall]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is looking at that. I am sure that he will discuss those issues with my hon. Friend, if he would like that.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I have heard nothing today that shows that the Government have listened to disabled people. Any changes to PIP should have been co-produced, but this week, 25 disabled people’s groups and charities wrote to Ministers begging for their opinions to be included, and not as an afterthought. Will the Secretary for State explain why disabled people are feeling so disregarded and scapegoated, and why impoverishing them to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I think that many disabled people felt disregarded and ignored under the Conservative Government. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them on many—not all—aspects of what I have announced today. If the hon. Lady has particular issues and concerns that she would like to raise, she can write to me, or I would be very happy for her to meet me or the Minister for Social Security and Disability.

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

Mr Speaker, you know that there are decisions made in this House that stay with you for the rest of your life. This is one of them. We all agree with the Secretary of State’s objectives of trying to ensure that disabled people have the resources they need for a decent quality of life, and that those capable of work have support to get into work. However, trying to find up to £5 billion of cuts by manipulating the PIP rules and criteria will result in immense suffering and, as we have seen in the past, loss of life. What independent monitoring will take place and be reported to the House, and what threshold of suffering is needed before an alternative route is taken to supporting disabled people?

[Liz Kendall]

I take the issues relating to the measures I have announced today very seriously. We want to ensure that all the assessment processes and training are properly scrutinised, and we are overhauling our safeguarding processes. My objective is to improve the lives and life chances of sick and disabled people by supporting into work those who can work, and by protecting those who will never work, through switching off reassessments to give them dignity and respect. I believe that the mission to ensure that those who can work do, and to secure the sustainability of the social security system for the long term, is the responsibility of the Labour party that founded the welfare state.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

One of the first acts of this Government was to take away the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners on incomes as low as £13,000 a year, including 44,000 who are—or were—terminally ill. Will the Secretary of State reassure all our constituents that in making these changes, she will not be going after those who have a terminal illness?

[Liz Kendall]

That is absolutely essential for me personally, and for the Government as a whole, and I give that assurance to the hon. Lady. However, I gently say to her that pensioner poverty increased under the Conservatives, and they left 880,000 pensioners not getting the pension credit they deserve. The Conservatives are suddenly converted to caring about pensioners on low incomes. In contrast, we have decided to act.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a physio, I know that optimising somebody’s function and independence, whether they are in work or not, saves the system so much money, because it prevents dependency. However, I find that incongruous with the cuts of £5 billion and the changes to the eligibility criteria. Will the Secretary of State ensure that before the measures are brought to the House, disabled people are consulted and involved in the decision making? We must ensure that people maintain their independence, psychological safety and dignity, and that they are not pushed further into poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with my hon. Friend that keeping older people physically independent for as long as possible is vital. That is one of the reasons why we are investing an extra £26 billion in the NHS. Not only are we rolling out employment advisers in talking therapies and mental health services, but we are starting to do so when it comes to physical health, too, including for people with musculoskeletal conditions, because getting people back to health and back to work is so important. We will legislate for the PIP changes, and the House will have the full ability to debate them. Crucially, we will consult disabled people on the employment support programme and how we get that right, so that it is much more joined up with the health support that many sick and disabled people need.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Many of my Hazel Grove constituents are keen as mustard to get back to work, but they are waiting for either a diagnosis or treatment on the NHS. That is made more difficult because of the capital spending needed at Stepping Hill hospital, and because mental health services across Greater Manchester are stretched too thin. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that her announcements today will not make an already difficult time in their lives even more difficult?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady is right to champion her constituents’ needs. We recently undertook a survey of people on sickness and disability benefits, and two in five of them said that they were on a waiting list. That really concerned us, and it is why we are putting extra investment in place. We need to go further, faster, on driving waiting lists down. We have already achieved the 2 million extra appointments that we said we would deliver in our manifesto—we did that seven months early—and we will do even more to ensure that her constituents get back to health and back to work.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Nearly 1 million young people leaving school are not in employment, training or education. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and I both represent St Helens. A couple of weeks ago, we received a letter from college tutors who were having difficulty getting young people to take up employment, training or education, asking if we could we do anything about that. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the guarantee of employment for young people, and how we will get them to accept training? Those young people were afraid of a cut in universal credit. I have to admit that I did not know that young people were on universal credit.

[Liz Kendall]

I promised I would keep my answers shorter, because so many colleagues want to get in. Our youth guarantee will be rolled out from next month. Mayors and local leaders will bring together work, health and skills support locally. I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend personally about what more we can do in her constituency, because she is right that we have to get those young people on a pathway to success.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

When I fought the last election, I was honest with my electorate, telling them that we would save £12 billion from the welfare budget. Was the Minister honest with her electorate when she talked about Labour’s plans to cut disability welfare, or is she making this policy on the hoof because the Chancellor has destroyed economic growth?

[Liz Kendall]

The Conservatives did not have a plan. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), admitted during the general election campaign that the money had already been scored. I will listen more to the hon. Member when the Conservatives put forward a plan that works, instead of having it discredited in the courts.

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

Too many carers of disabled people end up with physical and mental health disabilities themselves, and end up trapped in the same system as their loved ones. What more can the Secretary of State do with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to end that trap?

[Liz Kendall]

I have been a lifelong champion of family carers, who give their all to looking after the people they love. My hon. Friend will know that we have already boosted the carer’s allowance earning threshold by £45 a week to £196, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by ’29-30—the biggest ever cash increase in the earnings threshold for carers. We need to do much more to support family carers, including enabling them to balance their work and caring responsibilities. I look forward to talking to my hon. Friend about that.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State says that she will legislate for a change in PIP, so that in future, people must score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify. That means that an individual who needs supervision or assistance with therapy for three and a half hours a week, prompting and assistance with washing, assistance to get into the bath or shower, supervision to manage their toilet needs, and assistance to dress and undress their lower body would no longer qualify for PIP. How many such individuals are there?

[Liz Kendall]

It does not mean that. Every single case is assessed on individual need. It is really important that the hon. Lady and her constituents understand that we will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. Anyone who goes through a reassessment will have it done based on their personal needs.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will agree that under the managed decline of the SNP, people in Scotland are more likely to be economically inactive than those in the rest of the UK. She will further agree that we have greater ambitions for the people of Scotland, particularly young people, than the Conservative party. Does she agree that these reforms are absolutely necessary to put more Scots back to work, and back on the road to prosperity?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I would. People in Scotland deserve the same chances and choices to work. They deserve to get skills and training, to not have young people leaving school without the qualifications they need, to have an NHS that is reducing waiting times, and to have overhauled jobcentres—absolutely. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government to put all those problems right, because we want people in every part of this country to benefit.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s shift towards prevention. Last May, my constituent Alexander McRandal was riding his motorbike on the lanes of east Devon when he struck a pothole and was thrown from his bike. His collision resulted in permanent nerve damage. He has had to leave a 40-year career, and his wife Louise has given up work to look after him. While they will be reassured to hear that the Government will not freeze PIP, does the Secretary of State recognise that more investment in local government is needed to prevent situations like theirs?

[Liz Kendall]

I am really sorry to hear about what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family, and the impact it had on them. There is absolutely more that we need to do to provide local support, which is why the Get Britain Working plan is not all being determined by Whitehall. Local leaders know best what local areas need, which is why we are devolving more resources, powers and responsibilities to local areas to ensure that we shift the focus towards prevention and early intervention and help people get back on their feet.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

When cuts to incapacity support were introduced by the last Government through the work-related activity component, we saw severe rises in poverty, no significant increase in employment, and cases of mental ill health skyrocketing. In the north-east, we already have some of the highest rates of poverty and ill health in the country, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that these changes will not push people in areas like mine further into poverty and ill health?

[Liz Kendall]

This is absolutely about areas like those represented by my hon. Friend—areas that have been written off and denied opportunities for so long. It is really important that we look at this in the round. We are taking action to create more good jobs in every part of the country through the modern industrial strategy, clean energy and building 1.5 million homes. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is sending specific teams into the 20 areas with the highest levels of economic inactivity to drive down waiting lists. There is much more that we need to do to focus this on the areas that need help the most, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make that happen.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Today, across the United Kingdom and in my constituency of Upper Bann, so many genuine benefit recipients are fearful of what lies ahead—people who are vulnerable and need a compassionate welfare system to assist them in their day-to-day living. Regrettably, no reassurance has been given to those people today, particularly on the four-point minimum requirement. There has been little mention of fraud and the genuine need to tackle it head-on. Does the Secretary of State not believe that equipping our benefit fraud officers with resources and powers to catch and deal with those committing fraud would be a better starting point than sweeping changes that will be unlikely to outsmart the fraudster, but will hit the most vulnerable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady may not know, but we have a fraud Bill going through Parliament right now, because we believe that £8 billion being wasted on fraud every single year is unacceptable. I am more than happy to write to her to set out the contents of that Bill; we can then have another discussion.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The reality remains that over the last few weeks, thousands of the most severely disabled people in my constituency and millions across the UK have watched in disbelief as politicians debate cuts to the support that enables their very survival, leaving many at breaking point. Does the Secretary of State understand the real fear and distress that that has caused? Will she today commit at the Dispatch Box to ensuring that not a single person who currently receives PIP will be unfairly punished or left struggling by these plans?

[Liz Kendall]

I do understand the worry and anxiety. I hope I have made it clear to the House today that I do not start from a position of being tough: I start precisely from a position of compassion for people who can work and are being denied opportunities and for severely disabled people who will never work. That is one reason why we are overhauling our safeguarding processes to ensure that those who can never work are never reassessed, to give them the confidence and dignity that they deserve.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I welcome any initiative that will see more people getting back into work. Although I have some concerns about the wrong people being targeted—and the fact that there will not be the jobs for them to go to, because of the national insurance contributions increase—I will press the Secretary of State on the detail. I find it strange that she can tell us that this will save £5 billion, but she cannot give us even a ballpark figure—I do not expect it to the penny—for how much she will spend beyond and above the £1 billion she has already announced. I know that it will come out through the OBR, but can she not give us a rough idea of how much her changes will cost?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman may know that Government Members strongly believe in and support the independence of the OBR and the processes behind it. We can give overall figures today, but he will have to wait until the OBR assessment is published at the spring statement for the individual costings, how many people will be affected and by how much.

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

Many constituents have contacted me because they are afraid of losing their benefits. After 14 years of Tory neglect and chaos and several months of scaremongering, there is real vulnerability and fear in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we on the Government Benches believe that those who cannot work are nevertheless entitled to a decent standard of living? Like her, I believe that good work is good for us; it is good for mental wellbeing, a sense of worth and economic security, and disabled people are entitled to those. Will she write to me and set out in detail the incremental support, including tech support, that disabled people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West can expect as a result of these measures, and when they can expect them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely commit to doing that.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to right-to-try legislation being brought forward and to de-risking work, but the Treasury’s NIC rises make employing more expensive and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more risky. What assessment has her Department made with other relevant Departments of the impact of recent Government policies on job creation and opportunities for sick and disabled people to try work?

[Liz Kendall]

Labour Members believe that good work and employment rights make it more likely that people will take work, and that they will keep people in work—that is why we are bringing those changes forward. We have a lot of employers who want to work with us to get the people they need because they are struggling to fill vacancies. We are overhauling our approach to that, because we want to serve employers to better meet their needs.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Of course, everyone in our country who can work should work, and should receive appropriate support to do so. It is of the utmost importance to many Labour Members that Labour ensures that disabled people who can never work are supported and protected to live the best possible life in dignity. Can the Secretary of State tell me how an adult who cannot work—however much they would have liked to—because, for example, they have cerebral palsy, a visual impairment and learning difficulties, and who is on enhanced PIP and has limited capability for work and work-related activity, will be affected by these changes? What will be the impact on their finances?

[Liz Kendall]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues, and I have spoken to her about them many times. I absolutely agree, and we commit that people who will never be able to work because of the severity of their disability or health condition will be protected. In fact, by never going back and reassessing those people, I hope that we will make a positive improvement, giving them the dignity and respect they need and deserve.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Culture matters. Those who have been victims of the carers’ overpayment scandal describe the culture at the DWP as spirit-crushing, but the culture of the Government matters too. Last week, I spoke to my constituent Geoff, who lives in Haywards Heath and is partially sighted. He told me that he and the partially sighted community have been sick with worry about what is being brought forward today. Does the Secretary of State think that the pitch rolling that has gone on over the past 10 days is the right way to make these kinds of announcements?

[Liz Kendall]

I hope that from now on, hon. Members will focus on the proposals that we are actually putting forward. Culture really matters—that is why we launched an independent investigation into the carer’s allowance overpayments; we want not just to be told that we are putting things right but for independent voices to say that. Many of our work coaches in jobcentres are absolutely wonderful, but I have heard from other hon. Members about work coaches ringing deaf people. We must start changing that, looking at our training processes and putting all these things right so that everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

In Erewash, there are many disabled and sick people who can never work, but who are forced to jump endlessly through hoops for the benefits they need to survive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s plan to switch off reassessments and end the needless stresses that these people must endure. Will she elaborate on those plans?

[Liz Kendall]

This is something that is personally important to me and the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We have seen cases in which, unbelievably, people whose disability will never change, or whose health condition will only get progressively worse, are being reassessed. While we switch reassessments back on and make them more face-to-face for people on the health top-up, we really want to ensure that there is dignity and respect for those who can and will never work. I would be more than happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about that proposal in the Green Paper.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Has the Secretary of State ever been diagnosed with depression? I have—I have been in a situation where just getting up in the morning, having a shower and brushing your teeth feels like the biggest fight. Does she think that putting people who have been diagnosed with a mental health condition through more reassessments will make their mental health condition better or worse?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not talk about any health issues I may or may not have had in the past, although she is brave enough to talk about them in this House. People’s mental health conditions affect them in many different ways; there are people with anxiety and depression who say to me that work has actually given them structure and purpose and helped them deal with the problems, while others have said that sometimes they just cannot get out of bed, let alone out of the house. We need a system that recognises the different and fluctuating nature of these conditions and does whatever is right for that person, to get them back to health and—if they can—back to work.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I was a manager in the employment service. It has always needed reform, whether that is telling people that they have to come back in six weeks to get help or—under the Tory Government—being told to move people from employment benefits on to incapacity benefits in order to say that there are more people in employment. How we go about reforming it is fundamentally important, and I do not think it should be linked to saving money—that is rather crass, and it has caused lots of anxiety for my constituents and for people elsewhere. Patriotic Millionaires has said that a tax of just 2% on assets over £10 million will bring in £22 billion a year. That is a better way to bring money in to help fill the black hole that we have found ourselves in because of the disaster of 14 years of Tory Government. Does the Minister agree that aspiration, compassion, care and fairness will be the hallmarks of this Labour Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Aspiration, compassion, care and fairness are absolutely the hallmarks of this Government—that is why we are bringing forward these reforms. As I said earlier to the House, I do not start from a spreadsheet; I start from my belief that everybody has a value and a contribution to make, in whatever way, and that we want people to fulfil their potential. That is what these reforms are about.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Given the announced changes to the personal independence payment, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact on injured service personnel claiming the personal independence payment as an interim measure while their compensation claims are processed prior to the awarding of the armed forces independence payment, and will the armed forces independence payment also be within the scope of these changes?

[Liz Kendall]

I will look into that issue in detail, and will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend co-chairs the child poverty taskforce. Can she tell the House what analysis she has undertaken of the impact on child poverty of the reforms she is announcing today? Will she publish that analysis, and can she assure the House that these reforms will not make child poverty worse for any child living in a family where their parents or carers are in receipt of benefits?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As I said earlier, we will publish the equality impact analysis and the poverty impact analysis around the time of the spring statement. It is really important that we look at how more people will benefit from being in work and improving their incomes—that is essential. We will also come forward with our child poverty strategy, because we have a clear manifesto commitment to drive child poverty down. Children growing up in poverty could have their life chances damaged for years to come, and we are determined to put that right.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This whole statement is predicated on saving £5 billion at the expense of people with disabilities in our society. Anyone who has been through the trauma of trying to apply for a personal independence payment knows about the intrusive nature of the questioning, and about the great difficulty of obtaining that payment and then continuing to receive it in future. The Secretary of State’s statement has caused consternation and dismay to many people around the country—particularly those with disabilities—who are understandably alarmed that their benefits will go down and that they will live in greater poverty as a result. Can she say with hand on heart that no disabled person will be worse off after her statement, or will that £5 billion be taken at the expense of those in our society who already live the most difficult lives?

[Liz Kendall]

This statement is predicated on stopping people being written off—denied opportunities, denied hope and denied a future. It is about making the social security system sustainable for the long term, which is so important to me. When we have 1,000 new PIP awards every single day, many of those driven by mental health and young people, we have got to look at that. We cannot duck this challenge, because I want a social security system that will be there for centuries to come.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

My constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment today to protecting with dignity those who cannot work because they are so severely disabled or because of illness. There are many sick and disabled people who can work with the right support, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that those people will get the support they need to get into work to build a better life for them and their families?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. Members have rightly said that PIP is not a benefit related to work, but a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability. Actually, 17% of people on PIP are in work. I want to expand opportunities for disabled people who can work to get into work, because the disability employment gap, which actually fell under the last Government, has flatlined. We want to sort that out, because we believe that disabled people should have the same rights and chances to work, if they can, as everybody else.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State offer some reassurance to Sue from Wareham about her 45-year-old son, who is permanently disabled through childhood illness? She told me that he has great abilities and works part-time with support, but every time there is a change of circumstance, he has to prove his permanent disability again. The Secretary of State has confirmed that there will be changes to reassessments by DWP, but will that also apply across other Departments, including the Department for Transport, for matters including bus passes and blue badges? Those reassessments cause huge mental health issues.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I will look at that and write to her to make sure we address it properly.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

While I accept that it is perfectly possible for people with severe mental health conditions to work with the right support—in Warrington, we already have an employment rate above the Government’s national target—is there not a risk that these proposals are premature and that we are legislating for the mental health services we might hope to have in the future, rather than where these services are today? Does the Secretary of State accept that the issue is not over-diagnosis, but the broken mental health services we inherited?

[Liz Kendall]

I have always believed we should follow the evidence on this. We have a clear commitment to recruit 8,500 new mental health workers and to have mental health support in every primary and secondary school to prevent problems from happening. We also need to roll out individual placement and support within the NHS. I have seen in my own constituency that it can be life-transforming, but we need to go further and faster to ensure that all people with mental health problems who can work do so.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Wales will be hit hard by these cuts, with the second-highest proportion of disabled people of working age in the UK. Stripping £5 billion from the system will only increase pressure on other services. Has the Secretary of State secured the approval of her Labour Welsh Government colleagues, as they will be the ones who will have to shoulder the cost of these damaging cuts?

[Liz Kendall]

Welsh Labour wants to see more people having the chances and choices to get good jobs. That is why we have a modern industrial strategy to create good jobs in every part of the country, why we are building 1.5 million new homes and why we want to see clean energy support. All those things will make a huge difference. We do not believe that the status quo is acceptable or inevitable. That is why our plan for change will create more good jobs in every part of the country. I hope that the hon. Lady and her party will welcome that.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I support the measures set out in this statement to get people who can work into work. I have been contacted by constituents who are worried, such as my constituent Lisa, who has a son with a severe disability. He will never be able to work and relies on support. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that people like my constituent, who cannot work and will never be able to work, will not be worse off under these proposals?

[Liz Kendall]

We absolutely will protect those who can never work. One thing I have not said to the House so far is that we are consulting in the Green Paper on whether we should increase the age until which children get DLA from 16 to 18. That is an important point to give people the reassurance they need and deserve.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Parity in our welfare benefits is a key feature of our Union. When the last Government introduced their welfare reforms, the Northern Ireland Executive saw fit to introduce mitigations for which they had to pay by taking money off health and education out of the block grant. If the Northern Ireland Executive decide to mitigate these cuts on this occasion, can the Secretary of State confirm that that money would again have to come out of needed services, such as health and education?

[Liz Kendall]

Full details on the impact of these changes on the block grant will be available at the spring statement. The last Budget provided the biggest ever block grant settlement since devolution. I will be working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure we do everything possible to help people in Northern Ireland into work and off benefits, to ensure that they have the same chances and choices as people right across the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Peterborough is a youth unemployment hotspot. I know not many Members are left on the Opposition Benches, but one of the most shameful parts of their record has been writing off a generation, with one in eight young people not in education, earning or training. There is nothing progressive or good about a Government who write off young people and put them on benefits. I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has announced about employment support services for young people. Will she speak more about my passion, which is the Government’s youth guarantee and how we put into reality youth jobs for the future?

[Liz Kendall]

Young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are much more likely to be unemployed than young people in the rest of the country, and I know his passion for the youth guarantee. We are investing extra support into the youth guarantee in his area, and I look forward to launching that youth guarantee very soon.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I of course applaud the intention of getting people back to work, but my inbox—like those of everybody else here, I am certain—is full of emails from petrified disabled constituents. The recurring theme is the absolute disbelief that once again, welfare cuts are being imposed by none other than a Labour Government. What will the Secretary of State say to my constituent, Jason, who lives in our city? He has been told by Leicester city council that it will now consider his PIP payment as income and so has increased the council tax he has to pay. How does the Minister expect Jason to find that additional £900?

[Liz Kendall]

I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me about that constituent so I can look at the issue.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Three quarters of the people who claim universal credit and disability have gone without essential items in the past six months. The £5 billion cut is likely to make that worse for them. I have had lots of emails from my Liverpool Riverside constituents. As others have asked already this afternoon, will the Minister speak with the Chancellor about looking at a wealth tax? We need a wealth tax and not to be attacking the most vulnerable.

[Liz Kendall]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues. Her constituents will not only benefit from the £1 billion investment into employment support, but the first ever above-inflation permanent increase in universal credit, if people are on universal credit and PIP. We have already taken action to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take a bigger burden, including our action on the non-dom tax status and a tax on the profits of utility companies. That principle of fairness is vital to us all.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I go on the tube twice a week, and the disability seat in the carriage says “Not every disability is visible”. Bearing that in mind, those with severe mental health issues, such as paranoid psychosis, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, already fear phone calls from withheld phone numbers. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that they will not be impacted or hounded in the attempt to root out fraudsters? Does she accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness, or be able to explain it or grasp it? How will these people—my people; our people—be protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I think that everyone’s situation and condition is individual and personal to them, and that is why it is important that any reassessments are done on an individual case-by-case basis. There will be people with psychosis and schizophrenia who can never work, but I have met people in Leicester with precisely those conditions who have got work through the employment advice provided by the NHS’s individual placement and support service. That is why, as I have said, the pathways to work employment support is personalised and tailored to individual need.

Given the size and complexity of the social security system, it is not easy for me to provide an answer now for the people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why we must have those personal assessments, and I want much more to be done to ensure that they are carried out properly.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Last night I received a response from the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to a written question that I had asked about the average payment for the daily living component of PIP. It revealed that the average payment was just £12 a day. The purpose of the daily living component is to cover the cost of extra help needed with everyday tasks such as washing, eating, using the toilet and getting dressed, but the Secretary of State’s proposal to tighten the eligibility criteria could mean that even those who are assessed as needing help on every criterion may not be entitled to PIP. Is it not wrong to balance the books on the backs of sick and disabled people in such a way?

[Liz Kendall]

I can confirm that we will focus PIP on those with the greatest needs by changing the assessment so that people will need to score a minimum of four points to qualify for the daily living component. That will apply to new claimants from November 2026. Reassessments will be conducted on a personal, case-by-case basis, and therefore, while I entirely understand why Members raise issues about individuals, we cannot determine those cases from the Dispatch Box.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I represent the second most deprived constituency in the United Kingdom, where nearly one in two children are living in poverty, and I worry about the impact that these measures could have on child poverty numbers. Moreover, the number of young people in my constituency who are not in work, education or training is double the national average, but they cannot gain access to the mental health support that would enable them to get into work. That is happening throughout Blackpool, but it is also happening across the country. What can the Secretary of State do to turbocharge the health service while also putting representatives of the voluntary sector, the third sector and the charity sector into jobcentres, so that people can find mental health support immediately rather than waiting for us to rebuild the NHS that the Conservatives left in such a terrible mess?

[Liz Kendall]

We are considering putting jobcentres into GP surgeries and community centres. I believe in a jobs and careers service going to where people are, rather than always expecting them to come to us. I think I am right in saying that authorities in some parts of the country, such as the combined authority in Manchester, have commissioned specific talking therapies for people who are looking for work. That is the direction in which we want to move, and I should be more than happy to discuss it with my hon. Friend in more detail.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Hundreds of disabled people in my constituency want to work, but they often face absolute poverty pay and feel that they would be better off on benefits. On average, disabled workers are paid £2.35 an hour, or £4,300 a year, less than other workers. How will Labour’s commitment in the King’s Speech to a new equality Bill ensure that disabled workers will finally receive equal pay at work, and can choose a good job over being—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[Liz Kendall]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that today we launched a consultation on equality pay gap reporting, and I hope that that will make a huge difference.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

If we do indeed believe in the social model of disability described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), may I encourage the Secretary of State, and indeed everyone, to find a different language in which to talk about this? When we describe disabled people as being unable to work, we ignore the fact that most disabled adults are in work, while many of those who are not are desperate to get into work but are held back by low pay and lack of opportunities. Can we look again at Access to Work to ensure that the largest and most profitable employers are bearing more of the costs of adequate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that there are a great many more for me to get in? I ask them please to help each other, and keep the questions and answers short.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right: there are more disabled people in work than ever before, and we need to recognise that and go further. We are launching a consultation on Access to Work to ensure that more people are able to secure that vital support, and that it goes to the right place at the right time.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I agree with the Government that welfare reform is necessary, but many of my constituents are very worried about the removal of support on which they rely. Fourteen years of austerity under the Conservatives took its toll on our nation, with public service cuts and the cost of living crisis pushing people to the brink. What are the Government doing to address the root causes of people’s inability to work, rather than just focusing on the symptoms?

[Liz Kendall]

We are focusing precisely on the root causes. We are focusing on what more we can do to change the world of work, get people back to health and back to work and give them the skills that they need, and on tackling the disincentives in the benefits system. I am not interested in tinkering around; it is too important for people, and life is short. I want to get it right, tackle the root causes, and put the country on a pathway to success.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Many organisations, including our own NHS, use punitive capability processes when scoring the illnesses of people who become sick while in work, which causes additional stress to those who need support the most. How will the Government help employers to ensure that their employees are supported properly when they experience ill health?

[Liz Kendall]

Our Keep Britain Working review, led by the former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, is dealing with precisely that issue: what more we can do to help employers to give sick and disabled people more opportunities to obtain work and stay in work.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

The Resolution Freedom has warned that as a result of cuts in PIP, 62,000 people could lose about £675 a month, with the poorest families hit the hardest. Given that 870,000 children live in PIP-receiving households and 290,000 of them are already living below the poverty line, how can the Government justify pushing more disabled people and children into poverty rather than pursuing fairer alternatives, such as a 2% wealth tax on assets worth more than £10 million, which would raise £24 billion—five times as much as the suggested savings from the proposed cuts? Is “austerity 2.0” really the change that people voted for?

[Liz Kendall]

Spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits will still rise substantially over the current Parliament. The full assessment of the numbers affected, and by how much, will be published alongside the spring statement.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Cuts in social security for disabled people under the last Government led to their living in poverty with little or no increase in employment rates. What assessments have been made of the impact of these changes on their income, and will the Secretary of State ensure that any reforms are compassionate and disabled people have a voice?

[Liz Kendall]

Many other Members have asked that question. We will publish the equality impact and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I believe that we need to treat people with dignity, respect and compassion, but must also face up to the challenges of a failing system that is currently not sustainable, not for the public finances—although that is relevant—but for the very people who will depend on this in future. That is what we are trying to change.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring my constituents with profound disabilities that they will be protected under these reforms. My niece, who herself has autism and has faced significant barriers to work, is a health coach in a local jobcentre, where she is helping other people with disabilities, neurodiversity issues and mental illnesses to find work. However, she is frustrated by her lack of access to fit notes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that jobcentre staff have the time, information and resources that they need to help people with disabilities and health problems to find suitable and rewarding jobs?

[Liz Kendall]

As always, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We want to free up our work coaches’ time from tick-box benefit administration so that they can spend more time with sick and disabled people who need support, and can refer them to, for instance, mental health or debt advice services. When we do that, more people get into work, and both their finances and their mental health improve. We have already announced that we will free up 1,000 work coaches’ time to help more than 60,000 sick and disabled people, and that is just the start: we want it to be rolled out throughout the land.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I am one of the 6% to 8% of people living with a serious mental illness in employment, despite 80% of us wanting to work. I am here despite a mental health system that I have always found unsupportive, and because I went out of my way to forge my own pathway of support and care. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer of a package of support, my plea to her is that she work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that those of us who suffer with a severe mental illness have the true support that we need to access employment.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the things we learned during the pandemic is that a healthy nation and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin. I believe we need to do much, much more to join up what the DWP does with what the NHS and, crucially, local skills and voluntary organisations do. That is not the way we have worked in the past, but that is what we want to change.

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

Having worked for all his adult life, my dad had a life-altering stroke in 2013. He was just 55, and PIP kept him alive for 10 further years. As the person who helped to fill in his PIP forms, take him to assessments and make the telephone calls, I can tell the House that, without a doubt, the system is already incredibly difficult to access. Will the reforms help speed up the process for PIP assessments and decisions, which take far too long under the current process?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. We have announced in the Green Paper that, alongside the changes for which we will legislate, we will have a review of the PIP assessment process, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We will work with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others to sort this out. One of the great tragedies is that it is a miserable system for everybody. I do not want it to be like that—we need to change it—and I really look forward to talking to my hon. Friend to get more of his ideas.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

Labour believes in the value and dignity that having a job gives people, but too many disabled people who want a job are being let down and trapped by the current system. Organisations such as SWEDA—the Skills Work and Enterprise Development Agency—in West Bromwich help people with disabilities and long-term conditions into employment with tailored, local support. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this package of reforms will support people into good, fulfilling work via local organisations, and that we will protect people with long-term conditions who will never be able to work?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

The system is clearly broken, and I welcome the urgent work to get it fixed. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide to children living in households that receive PIP but are in poverty? What reassurance can she provide to the one in five people in receipt of universal credit and disability benefit, who are reliant on food banks already? What reassurance can she give to my constituents, 6,000 of whom claim PIP, which they need for dignified lives?

[Liz Kendall]

Having chaired Feeding Leicester for years—unfortunately, I had to give it up when I got this job—I know only too well the issues that people face right across my city and my hon. Friend’s constituency. Our objective is to get those who can work into good work, because that is the sustainable way to tackle poverty and inequality in this country. We are also committed to developing a bold, cross-Government child poverty strategy, which we hope to publish shortly.

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

Being healthy is shaped by the world around us, from the homes we live in to the air we breathe and the money in our pockets. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a moral case for tackling the social determinants of ill health and the causes of poverty, rather than cutting the benefits of the most vulnerable people in our society?

[Liz Kendall]

I have worked in health, and one of my first jobs involved tackling health inequalities when I worked at the King’s Fund charity. We are looking at building not only more homes, but more decent homes. We want people not just to get jobs, but to get good jobs. We are looking at raising the income of the poorest people with our new fair repayment rate, which gives an average of £420 a year extra to the 1.2 million poorest families. There is much more that we can do but, right across Government, our purpose is to tackle poverty and inequality by getting more people into good jobs. That is the Labour way.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I strongly congratulate the Secretary of State on the £1 billion package of employment support. Many active labour market policies have been shown to have considerable economic impact. Historically, it has been difficult for the Office for National Statistics to score the positive impacts of active policies, as opposed to the more straightforward impacts of budget reductions. Will the Secretary of State commit to working cross-departmentally to ensure that we have long-term investment in the health of our nation, which is so fundamental to the wealth of our economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Yes.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I welcome the reforms outlined today and the commitment to make sure that our most vulnerable disabled people are protected from these changes. In Darlington, we know the value of work, but I have come across constituents with learning difficulties who have been out of work for a long time. They have been in work placements and could work, but they were badly bullied and have been scarred by 14 years of rhetoric about how they are workshy. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that they will be offered safe and secure work placements?

[Liz Kendall]

I am not interested in blaming people to grab easy headlines; we have had that for too long. I know that many people with autism and neuro-divergent people have been treated badly, which needs to change. If my hon. Friend would like to send more case studies and examples from her constituency, I will look at them to see what we can do. We will try to put things right.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

Many will see the removal of £5 billion from the social security system not as reforms, but as the continuation of the failed ideology of Tory austerity, which has already cost thousands of lives. I have had hundreds of disabled constituents tell me that they are absolutely terrified by what the Government are planning to do. Does the Secretary of State really believe that it is fair to balance the books on the backs of disabled people and the poor, rather than introducing a wealth tax on the super-rich?

[Liz Kendall]

Let us be honest: that is not what we are doing. I do not accept the status quo—it is miserable for people who can work, and miserable for those who cannot. That is what I want to change.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the tone that she has struck today. We are talking about people’s lives, not figures on a spreadsheet, and I hope to see that reflected in the delivery of these plans.

Disabled people’s trust in the system is low following 14 years of a failed punitive approach by the Conservative party, and speculation in recent days has left my constituents feeling fearful. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that those with the most severe disabilities—those who are genuinely unable to work—will be no worse off under these plans?

[Liz Kendall]

I can absolutely give that commitment. Many hon. Members have raised the issue of culture, which is about how people feel they have been treated and the headlines that they see in the papers. It is really important that we change that. I know that we cannot do so overnight, but the entire team in the DWP—our Ministers and officials—want to change things so that we can get people on a pathway to success.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Welfare reform must ensure that incentivising people into work does not produce unintended health consequences, not least by generating fear and uncertainty, as she rightly points out. Does she agree that we need to address the health inequity issues that are delaying treatment of mental illness, and our underlying public health and inequality issues? Welfare reform and NHS transformation must complement each other, to make sure that no one is left behind.

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree that we need to tackle these issues, but there is more and more evidence that good work is good for the mental health of people with anxiety and depression, and for those with serious conditions, if support is provided in the right way. I have seen it for myself in my constituency, including through the work that the NHS is doing. We have to spread that far more widely.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

We know that helping people to stay well and manage long-term conditions or disabilities is almost always cheaper in the long term. Can the Secretary of State tell me how she will account for the potential wider system costs of changing the amount of money that is available to people with disabilities or long-term conditions?

[Liz Kendall]

For many years before I was appointed as a shadow DWP Minister, I worked in health and social care, and I know that helping people to manage their long-term conditions is absolutely essential. We must give people power, control and agency over their lives, rather than telling them that a doctor or somebody else always knows best. I deeply believe in that principle, and I will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, because I know he believes that, too. There is much more we can do, but we will definitely make a start.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

I recently held a child poverty roundtable in my constituency, and one of the issues raised repeatedly was that many people who want to work find themselves worse off when they lose benefits and find themselves pushed into hardship. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide for my constituents that under these changes they will be better off in work and will no longer be penalised for wanting to improve their life’s circumstances and those of their families?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and it would be really good if she talked to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is reviewing universal credit, as we promised in our manifesto, to tackle poverty and make work pay. We have to make that a reality for everybody in this country, and I am sure that, if she talks to him, he will speak more about what we are doing in this regard.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Last week, my constituent Ellie, who is visually impaired, visited the local jobcentre, but as a full-time student seeking part-time work, she was belittled, spoken over and told that she could not get help because she was on PIP, not on UC. She left feeling devastated by that experience. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and Ellie that such an experience will become a thing of the past for people like her who are desperately seeking work?

[Liz Kendall]

That is absolutely my intention. I ask my hon. Friend to send me the details, because I will look into that personally.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clue is in the name of our party? Because we believe in dignity in work and enhanced workers’ rights; dignity and far more support for disabled people and people with health conditions seeking work, particularly with the right to try; and dignity and compassion for those unable to work, especially in ending reassessments. Does she also agree that this Labour Government will get Britain working and get welfare working better, with compassion and support at its heart?

[Liz Kendall]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. I do not pretend that this will change overnight, and I know it is a huge agenda, but we are in politics to make a difference—and a big difference—because, as I have said, life is short, and there is much we need to do.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Many of us in this place have fought alongside parents of severely disabled people, not least against our broken SEND system. Can the Secretary of State reassure those parents, who may be looking at the proposed changes to UC health eligibility for under-22s and feeling deeply dismayed right now?

[Liz Kendall]

We are consulting on this proposal, and we want to make sure that those severely disabled people who will never work will be protected. However, I also know that there are many young people with special educational needs and learning difficulties who, with the right support, can make a contribution, live independently and get work. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to get this right, because it is really important that we ensure all young people get the support and opportunities they deserve.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Tory legacy in coastal communities such as mine in East Thanet is a broken welfare system and a broken economy. The number of people claiming PIP has more than doubled in my constituency since 2018, and the statistics on young people claiming for mental health conditions are particularly heartbreaking. However, two things can be true at once: too many people are being written off without a path to wellness and work; and there must be reliable support for those who cannot work. Can my right hon. Friend explain how reducing support for those who struggle to wash and dress themselves will help tackle either of these challenges?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend, as always, speaks passionately about her constituency and the need to make sure that the support for people who can work is there, but also that we protect those who cannot. I would say that every case needs to be judged on an individual basis, and we will make sure that that happens.

I say to the House, and to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, that I know many people would have wanted to ask more questions and to say more, but my door is always open. We want and need to get this right, and we will have more debates about this, but if any hon. Member on either side of the House wants to contact me with more questions, I and the team will do everything we can to address those openly, honestly and quickly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The final question from the Back Benches will come from Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think we all know that the current system is not only broken, but unsustainable. I welcome her focus on supporting the long-term unemployed, and I would point to some good examples of the work we are doing in my constituency. However, would she agree that we need to support those constituents in Harlow, many with severe disabilities, who cannot work, and end this merry-go-round of constant reassessment?

[Liz Kendall]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you were saving the best till last, as always, with my hon. Friend.

We absolutely will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. I do not want to see them having to go through deeply worrying reassessments, and we want to put that right. For people in Harlow who can work but have been denied such opportunities, we will fix the broken system, tackle the perverse incentives left us by the Conservatives, and give people the hope and opportunity that there are better days ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just to let Members know that about 100 Members have asked questions on the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

21. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Derby.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I want to begin by saying that there has understandably been a lot of speculation about the Government’s social security reforms. I assure the House and, most importantly, the public that we will be coming forward with our proposals imminently to ensure that there is trust and fairness in the social security system and that it is there for people who need it now and in the years to come.

Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is terrible for their living standards, their future job prospects and their health. That is why our new youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning. Our trailblazers, backed by £45 million of additional funding, will lead the way and will start in eight areas next month.

[Amanda Martin]

Each of those 1 million people is a real person, and I was contacted by a young man in my constituency who studied an early years education T-level and wanted to enter a desperately understaffed profession but has been struggling ever since to access a starter job. Being out of work while young can have a scarring effect that impacts people’s job prospects for a lifetime. Will the Secretary of State work to identify people at risk of becoming NEET and ensure that my constituents are supported to find meaningful work?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Her constituent deserves to fulfil his potential and live his hopes and dreams, like everybody else. We will be working hard with the Department for Education to identify those young people who are at risk of becoming NEET, to ensure that we put in place the skills training they need to get the jobs of the future and fulfil their potential, as they deserve.

[Emma Foody]

I suspect there might be quite a spike in the number of Geordies not in work today, given the cup final at the weekend.

I recently visited Azure, a charity in my constituency that provides learning and work opportunities, especially for young people with learning disabilities, and heard about the incredible work it does to provide young people with hands-on experience in a hospitality-based learning environment. Will the Secretary of State detail what more the Government can do to support charities such as Azure to provide these vital opportunities?

[Liz Kendall]

I congratulate Azure on its brilliant work. I believe that charities and voluntary organisations have an essential role in getting people on the pathway to work and success. I know from the supported internship programmes that have been run in my constituency, including through my local hospital, that young people with learning difficulties can, with the right support, get those jobs and get that work. That is what this Government want to deliver.

[Chris Curtis]

I am increasingly concerned by the rising number of young people in Milton Keynes who are out of work due to mental health issues, which I think is a key factor behind the nearly 12% increase in young people claiming unemployment benefits in Milton Keynes since 2024. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that these young people have the support and opportunities they need to continue to improve their health, secure stable employment and live independently with better living standards?

[Liz Kendall]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the number of young people not in work due to mental health conditions, which has increased by over 25% in the last year alone. The number of young people who are economically inactive due to poor mental health now stands at 270,000. That is why we are focusing on early intervention, providing mental health support in every school and recruiting an extra 8,500 more mental health staff, and from April we will be launching our youth guarantee and trailblazers to ensure that every young person is earning or learning.

[Baggy Shanker]

The Derby Promise recognises that children and young people are the future of Derby by bringing together businesses and organisations across our great city to give children meaningful, aspirational experiences, whether at iconic factories, or cultural or sports venues. We know, however, that children already face limits on their future career aspirations by the age of seven. Will the Minister outline what work her Department is undertaking to support children in Derby and across the UK from an early age to raise their future career aspirations? Will she also agree to visit Derby to see the Derby Promise in action?

[Liz Kendall]

I or one of my team will definitely visit the Derby Promise. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that young people are ruling out future careers at a young age. I met with the Careers and Enterprise Company on Friday, and they told me that children are ruling out careers by their gender at age seven and by their class by age nine. For the Labour party, that is not good enough. I hope the Derby Promise will be involved in the youth guarantee in the east midlands, led by the mayor, Claire Ward, because we have to unlock the potential of every young person if they and this country are to succeed.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Like young people in Portsmouth North, in Cramlington and Killingworth, and in Derby South, young people in Glastonbury and Somerton face barriers to their employment, education and training due to poor public transport infrastructure. Research has shown, however, that a 1% improvement in public transport time could support a 1% reduction in employment deprivation. What steps is the Minister taking, alongside Cabinet colleagues, to remove barriers to employment, education and training in rural areas?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point, and it is one that mayors and local leaders raise with us regularly, as well as families who are struggling and children and young people in poverty. That is why we believe it is so important to put mayors and local leaders in the driving seat of change, so that they can link up transport, skills and job opportunities, as part of our plans. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and I have been working closely with local leaders to ensure that happens, because if people have to get work, the transport must be in place.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Minister for Social Security and Disability was kind enough to come to the launch of the “What comes after education?” report by National Star and the Together Trust. One key finding of that report is that young people with disabilities face particular problems when trying to access work. The system is set up against them and workplaces are set up not to work for them, yet many of them want to do whatever they can to find meaningful employment. When Ministers are making decisions about upcoming welfare changes, I hope that report will be on their desks and that it will be properly considered.

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman will indeed be hearing more about our plans, which will include proper employment support to help people on a pathway to success. We also have our “Keep Britain Working” review, led by the former boss of John Lewis, Charlie Mayfield, which is looking precisely at what more employers can do, with support from Government, to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces and to guarantee that disabled people who can work have the same rights and choices to work as everybody else?

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Much like the constituencies that have been mentioned, my young people in Chichester are struggling to find work and that is no more apparent than for those with learning difficulties, so will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Together Our Community, or TOC, which provides work experience for young people with learning disabilities aged 18 to 35 to show that they do have something to offer the workforce? TOC is about to open its own café and centre for these young people. Will the Secretary of State outline what support is available for such charities and join me at its opening next month?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady had 14 years to solve the problem and the Conservatives’ record is clear: nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, which is one in eight of all our young people; and the number of young people with mental health concerns who are out of work has now reached 270,000. That is the legacy of 14 years of Conservative government, and it is a legacy that this Government are determined to change.

[Helen Whately]

I asked about what has happened “since” the right hon. Lady’s party has been in government: it is her Chancellor’s tax on jobs and economic mismanagement that are costing young people opportunities. Instead of taxing jobs, Labour should have been ready with a plan for welfare reform at the time of the Budget. They have spent nine months trying to cobble one together and still we wait. Why did the right hon. Lady not make any plans in opposition, and does she regret that?

[Liz Kendall]

Conservative Members had no plan. Even their own former Chancellor admitted that the numbers were made up. The only thing they put forward were proposals on the work capability assessment, which have recently been ruled illegal by the courts. They had no plan, but they had a clear record: leaving people behind, writing them off and putting them on the scrapheap. This Labour Government will turn that around and get people, and our country, on the pathway to success.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

3. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of removing the two-child benefit cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

16. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the welfare system in supporting disabled people into work.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

Many disabled people want to work but were written off and failed by the last Government. Our work aspirations survey of health and disability claimants found that a third wanted to work at some point in the future if their health improved or the right job was available, and 200,000 said that they would work now if they got the right support. This Government will ensure that disabled people who can work have the same rights and chances to work as everybody else, because that principle of equality is what this Labour Government are for.

[David Williams]

Christopher, a resident of Talke in my constituency, was badly let down by a flawed PIP assessment—one that lacked basic humanity and empathy. With reports of welfare reforms in the media, he is now deeply worried about what the future holds. What steps will be taken to ensure that people like Christopher are treated with fairness and dignity, and given the support that they need?

[Liz Kendall]

I say to my hon. Friend and his constituent that treating people with dignity and respect is absolutely at the heart of this Government’s plans. Having been a constituency MP for 14 long years under the Conservatives, I know that there will always be people who cannot work because of the severity of their disability or illness, but I also meet—day in, day out—disabled people who are denied the chance to work, for many different reasons. That is what we want to put right, to ensure that the social security system is there for those who need it, and not just now but for years to come.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State looks at reform, is she considering the PIP reassessment process? For people whose conditions will not get any better, would it not be sensible to relieve them of the burden of that reassessment process unless they wish to be reassessed? That would be less distressing for them, it would save money in the system, and it would allow people who do need reassessment to be reassessed faster.

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Patience is never my greatest virtue, but I ask him and the House to be patient and to look at the full proposals, which we will put forward imminently.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

18. What steps her Department is taking to support care leavers into employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

This week is Sign Language Week, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be speaking in the Backbench Business debate to mark Sign Language Week on Thursday.

This week is also Neurodiversity Celebration Week. Neurodivergent people face particular barriers to employment, with less than one in three in work. Everyone deserves the chance to fulfil their potential, so we recently launched a new independent panel to advise us on these issues. The experts on the panel, including neurodivergent people themselves, will present their recommendations to us later this year, and I very much look forward to their findings.

[Jessica Toale]

Last week I visited the Crumbs project in my constituency. Crumbs provides training for people with disabilities and mental health conditions to get the professional skills they need to go into the hospitality industry, and the personal skills they need to live independently, and 90% of its trainees move into employment. Given the Secretary of State’s commitment to bringing people with long-term health conditions and disabilities back into work, what more support can she give to successful programmes such as Crumbs?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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]

The hon. Lady will have to show a little patience. She talks about plans, but we have seen her and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), making claims in various newspapers about their plan—but there never was a plan. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), actually admitted that during the election when he said that the numbers had already been scored. The only thing that the previous Government ever put forward was ruled illegal by the courts. They had 14 years to put this right; this Government will act.

[Helen Whately]

I listened hard to the right hon. Lady’s answer but, given everything I heard, I still do not think she has the support of Cabinet colleagues, with less than 24 hours to go. It was a no.

There is never a good time for millions of people to be out of work, but as the world gets more dangerous we can afford neither the benefits bill nor the waste of human potential. Given the opposition of the right hon. Lady’s party to welfare reform, can she assure me that her planned reforms will grasp the nettle and bring the benefits bill down?

[Liz Kendall]

That from a member of a Government who left one in 10 working-age people on a sickness and disability benefit, one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. That was terrible for them—for their life chances, incomes and health—and terrible for taxpayers who are paying for an ever-spiralling bill for the cost of failure. Unlike the Conservative Government, who wrote people off and then blamed them to get a cheap headline, we will take decisive action, get people into work and get this country on a pathway to success.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

T2. The number of young people not in education, training or work is disproportionately high in areas such as Hartlepool —something the Conservative party did nothing about in 14 years. How will the Secretary of State ensure that opportunity for young people reaches every part of our country?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, just as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has said, that we know there will always be people who cannot work because of the nature of their disability or health condition, and those people will be protected.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

T3.   For many people in Dartford, being given the opportunity to learn new skills would open the door to work, particularly with the prospect of new infrastructure projects such as the lower Thames crossing on the horizon. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that she is working with the Education Secretary to give all young people a route into good work?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we are not only working together closely to expand the number of apprenticeships for young people, but looking at changing the rules so that they do not always have to have the basic GCSE maths and English to get a new foundation apprenticeships. I think we need to go further by working closely with schools. On Friday, in my own constituency, I visited a school that is looking closely at the risk factors for becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—which is where we really need to take action.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

T4. The Secretary of State co-chairs the child poverty taskforce. Will she confirm that its brief will be very wide-ranging, including looking at children in poverty in dispersed rural communities such as mine, but also taking practical steps to tackle poverty among migrant children whose parents have no recourse to public funds?

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely. The child poverty strategy is looking widely at how we can: increase people’s incomes, including through work; reduce costs; ensure families are more financially resilient, looking at issues like debt and savings; and give all children the best start in life, no matter their background or where they live.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Minister provide an update on the JobsPlus pilot and what assessment has been given to its future roll-out, including widening it to include Suffolk Coastal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Government announced billions of cuts to the Department; then, over recent days, Ministers have made U-turn after U-turn, and in the media round over the weekend were spinning out of control. Is there anything meaningful left to announce from the Secretary of State’s original welfare plans?

[Liz Kendall]

The Conservative party, which left a broken welfare system that is failing the people who depend on it and taxpayers, had 14 years to put it right. We know what their legacy is. Hon. Members will see the proposals soon, but we will not shy away from the decisions that we believe are right to give opportunities to people who can work, security for those who cannot, and to get the welfare bill on a sustainable footing.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Today’s Telegraph has done a right hatchet job on the most socially deprived ward in my constituency. The people of the East Marsh are sick and tired of journalists taking a day trip to write their poverty porn stories about people who are proud and keen to play their part in society in every way that they can. They have sought to pit older people against younger people, highlighting the NEET record. The young people in that ward are as keen to work as anyone else, but they need the jobs to do it. What discussions is the Secretary of State having about that?

[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 Speaker]

Order. It is topical questions. I have a few Members still get in.

Household Support Fund

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

This Government are committed to a sustainable, long-term approach to drive up opportunity and drive down poverty across the UK.

At the autumn Budget, we announced a one-year £742 million extension of the household support fund in England, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. The devolved Governments will receive consequential funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way, to be spent at their discretion.

We know that local authorities have the experience and relationships to determine how best to support those in their local areas. This extension of the household support fund will enable local authorities to provide everything from immediate crisis support such as food vouchers or warm winter clothing to more preventive approaches to tackling poverty, such as referring people to debt and other advice services, working with community and voluntary organisations to signpost people to wider support, and helping with costs of energy bills and white goods.

We also encourage local authorities to consider how their provision of crisis support could have a longer-term, sustainable impact, such as providing insulation or energy-efficient household items which reduce bills and repairing or replacing white goods and appliances.

The scheme guidance and funding allocations for the forthcoming extension will be shared with local authorities imminently.

[HCWS495]