Health and Disability Reform

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

I wish to inform the House that my Department has today published a Command Paper launching the public consultation entitled “Modernising support for independent living: the health and disability green paper”. The consultation seeks views on options to fundamentally change the personal independence payment.

PIP was introduced in 2013 to provide non-means-tested cash payments to disabled people and people with health conditions, to help them live independent lives. The intention was that PIP would be a contribution to extra costs arising from their disability and a more sustainable, dynamic benefit that would also pay greater attention to mental health than its predecessor, the disability living allowance.

This Government’s priority is to make sure that our welfare system is fair and compassionate—fair on the taxpayer by ensuring that people of working age who can work, do work, and fair on those who are in most need of the state’s help. Welfare at its best is about more than just benefit payments; it is about changing lives for the better. However, our current disability benefit system for adults of working age is not providing support in the way that was intended.

We know that any additional costs arising from a disability or health condition—which PIP is intended to help with—can vary significantly and are unique to the individual’s circumstances. Some people on PIP may have relatively small one-off or ongoing additional costs related to their disability or health condition that are fully covered by their award, while others may find that the current system does not provide enough support to meet their needs. However, the current system operates a one-size-fits-all model and does not channel people towards bespoke support tailored to an individual’s needs. We want to understand whether there are other forms of support that may be more suitable for everyone, including people with mental health conditions.

In the decade since the introduction of PIP, the nature and understanding of health and disability has also changed profoundly, and the clinical case mix has evolved in line with these broader changes; for example, there are many more people applying for disability benefits with mental health and neurodivergent conditions.

Costs and case loads have risen in line with this. In 2019, there was an average of 2,200 new PIP awards a month in England and Wales where the main disabling condition was mixed anxiety and depressive disorders. That has more than doubled to 5,300 a month in 2023. Over the coming 5 years, PIP spending is expected to grow by 63% (£21.6 billion to £35.3 billion, 2023-24 to 2028-29). Each month there are now 33,000 people joining the benefit, around double the rate before the pandemic. The forecast spending on people of working age with a disability or health condition for 2024-25 is £69 billion.

We believe it is the right time to look again at ensuring Government support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions is focused where it is most needed.

This Green Paper looks at whether there are ways we can improve how we support people in a way that is also fairer to the taxpayer than the current system is. Our approach to transforming the benefits system for disabled people and people with long term health conditions is guided by three important priorities. These are:

Providing the right support to the people who need it most.

Targeting our resources most effectively.

Supporting disabled people to reach their full potential and live independently.

This Green Paper will explore changes we could make to the current PIP system to ensure support is targeted where it is most needed. These options include:

Considering options for amending PIP eligibility within the current functional assessment framework.

Exploring the option of an alternative assessment model focused more on a person’s condition.

Looking at different models that could be used to meet the extra costs disabled people and people with health conditions face.

Exploring greater alignment of the support offered by PIP with existing local services.

Responsibility for health and disability benefits lies with both the UK Government and devolved Administrations. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to consider the implications of the proposals in this Green Paper in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

We will always be committed to supporting the most vulnerable. We believe that now is the right time to look again at ensuring that Government support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions is focused where it is most needed.

[HCWS432]

Health and Disability Reform

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The sitting is now resumed. The reason for the suspension was because the statement, which under the ministerial code should have been delivered at a minimum of 45 minutes prior to the statement being made, was delivered late; I know the Secretary of State will want to look into the matter and report back to the Speaker.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

First, may I apologise profusely to the House that a copy of my statement was not provided to Mr Speaker and indeed those on the Opposition Front Benches sufficiently in advance of my statement? May I also take this as my first opportunity in the House to say how saddened I was by the passing of Frank Field, a true champion of welfare reform who was always prepared to work across party? While we did not always agree on all matters, I share and admire his belief that welfare means transforming lives.

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the consultation we are launching today on the changes to the personal independence payment, which aim to create a benefits system that can best support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to live full and independent lives.

This Government’s priority is to make sure that our welfare system is fair and compassionate: fair on the taxpayer by ensuring that people of working age who can work do work; and fair on those in most need of the state’s help. Welfare at its best is about more than just benefit payments; it is about changing lives for the better.

In recent years the Government have delivered successive reforms to create a system that is fairer and more compassionate while providing value for the taxpayer. We have reformed an outdated and complex legacy benefits system and introduced universal credit—a new, modern benefit that ensures people are better off in work than on benefits. Last year we published a landmark White Paper announcing significant reforms to focus the welfare system on what people can do rather than what they cannot. We are delivering our £2.5 billion back to work plan, substantially expanding the employment support to help more disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work. Our reforms to the work capability assessment will better reflect the opportunities in the modern world of work and ensure that more people get the support they need to move into employment, while protecting those unable to work, and in February we published the disability action plan to make this country the most accessible place in the world for people to live, work and thrive.

In addition, the Government have provided unprecedented help for the most vulnerable, including by implementing one of the largest cost of living support packages in Europe, which prevented 1.3 million people from falling into absolute poverty during a time of global inflationary pressures. We have increased benefits by 6.7% and raised the local housing allowance, benefiting 1.6 million households by an average of around £800 this year.

Our approach to transforming the benefits system for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions is guided by three important priorities: providing the right support to the people who need it most; targeting our resources most effectively; and supporting disabled people to reach their full potential and to live independently.

Although we have made significant progress, the disability benefit system for adults of working age is not consistently providing support in the way that was intended. It has been more than a decade since the introduction of the personal independence payment. The intention was that it would be a more sustainable, more dynamic benefit that would provide better targeted support to help disabled people with the extra costs arising from their disability. However, the nature and understanding of disability and ill health in Britain has changed profoundly since then, and the clinical case mix has evolved in line with those broader changes, including many more people applying for disability benefits with mental health and neurodivergent conditions.

Since 2015, the proportion of the caseload receiving the highest rate of PIP has increased from 25% to 36%. Some 7% of working-age people in England and Wales are now claiming PIP or disability living allowance, which is forecast to rise to 10% by 2028-29. In 2022-23, the Government spent £15.7 billion on extra costs disability benefits for people of working age in England and Wales, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the cost will rise to £29.8 billion in nominal terms by 2028-29. There are now more than 33,000 new awards for PIP per month. That figure has almost doubled since the pandemic.

With almost a quarter of the adult population now reporting a disability—up from 16% in 2013—I believe that now is the time for a new conversation about how the benefits system can best support people to live full and independent lives. Today I am launching a consultation to explore changes that could be made to the current PIP system to ensure that support is focused where it is most needed. These options include: making changes to eligibility criteria for PIP; redesigning the PIP assessment to better target it towards the individual needs of disabled people and people with health conditions, including exploring whether people with specific health conditions or disabilities can be taken out of PIP assessments all together; and reforming the PIP assessment so that it is more linked to a person’s condition. We are also consulting on whether we should make fundamental changes to how we provide support to disabled people and people with a health condition.

We know that any additional costs arising from a disability or health condition, which PIP is intended to help with, can vary significantly and are unique to the individual’s circumstances. Some people on PIP may have relatively small one-off costs, such as walking aids or aids to help with eating and drinking, or ongoing additional costs related to their disability or health condition, such as help around the home or running a ventilator. Some claimants’ costs will be fully covered by their award, while others may find the current system does not provide enough support to meet their needs, yet the current system operates a one-size-fits-all model and does not channel people towards bespoke support tailored to an individual’s needs. We recognise that better, more targeted support could be provided by other local services.

Our plans include exploring how the welfare system could be improved with new approaches to providing support, such as: moving away from a fixed cash benefit system, so that people can receive more tailored support in line with their needs; exploring how to better align the support PIP offers with existing services and offers of support available to disabled people and people with health conditions; and exploring alternative ways of supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives, which could mean financial support being better targeted at people who have specific extra costs, but could also involve improved support of other kinds, such as respite care or physical or mental health treatment, aiming to achieve better outcomes for individuals.

Crucially, we want to explore whether we can achieve our aims within the current structure of health and disability benefits, or whether wider change is needed. We are consulting over the next 12 weeks to seek views from across society, including disabled people and representative organisations, to ensure that everyone has a chance to shape welfare reforms that will modernise the support provided through the benefits system.

We know that these reforms are significant in their scale and ambition, but we will not shy away from the challenges facing our welfare system today. We owe that to the millions of people who rely on it and to the hard-working people whose taxes underpin it. That is what the next generation of welfare reforms is all about. These proposals will help to create a benefits system that can better support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to live full and independent lives, and they are a crucial part of my mission to ensure that the welfare system is fair and compassionate and that it provides the right help to those who need it most. I commend this statement to the House.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments about Frank Field. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is sitting alongside me on the Front Bench, thought the world of Frank. I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute to a person who was completely unique in every way.

With regards to advance sight of the Secretary of State’s statement, I say: apology accepted. Labour will carefully review the detail of the Green Paper, because the country that we want is one where disabled people have the same right to a good job and help to get it as anyone else. We will judge any measure that the Government bring forward on its merits and against that principle, because the costs of failure in this area are unsustainable. The autonomy and routine of work is good for us all, for our mental and physical health—and more than that, for women, work is freedom, too.

I have read the Secretary of State’s gibes about Labour. He says that he does not know what our position is on a set of reforms that he has not set out. The Prime Minister made a speech about this issue two weeks ago, but every single day since then the Government have failed to publish the Green Paper. The Secretary of State wants my views on his, until this moment, unpublished thoughts. What was the problem? Was the printer jammed? Rather, was it that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State realised that, as soon as they published the Green Paper, everyone would realise the truth about the Government: like the Prime Minister who leads them, they are long on questions and short when it comes to the answers?

The Green Paper is not a plan; it is an exam that the Secretary of State is hoping he will never have to sit. The reason he wants to know Labour’s plan is that he suspects he will be long gone before any of these proposals are a reality. Will the Secretary of State tell me where the Green Paper leaves the Government’s earlier half-baked plan to scrap the work capability assessment, given that the idea behind that was to use the PIP assessment? He said that some health conditions can be taken out of PIP assessments. Which conditions was he talking about?

PIP was the creation of a Conservative Government, so where is the analysis of what has gone wrong? PIP replaced DLA, and now we are hearing that PIP is the problem. How many more times will we go around this same roundabout? Do the Government’s plans involve treating people’s mental and physical health differently? Can he explain the legal basis for doing so? Importantly, on health itself, is this Green Paper not a huge admission of the Tory failure on the NHS, in that it takes as its starting point the fact that people today simply cannot get the treatment and care they need? What will the costs of any new system be, in particular those of any extra support of the kind he mentioned? Will we see a White Paper before a general election?

I am standing in today and for the next few weeks for my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who believes that health and work are two sides of the same coin. That is the insight that the Government are missing today. I ask myself how we got here. The country today is sicker—that is the legacy of this Government. NHS waiting lists are longer than they have ever been—that is the legacy of the Secretary of State’s party. If he does not know how bad things are in mental healthcare, he needs only to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). There are 2.8 million people who are locked out of work due to long-term sickness. That is the Conservative legacy: like ice on our potholed roads, the Tories have widened the cracks in our economy and society, making them all much worse.

With respect to mental health, in recent weeks the Secretary of State has decided to speak out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says,

“I’m grateful for today’s much more open approach to mental health”,

but with the same breath he goes on to say,

“there is danger that this has gone too far.”

He wants it both ways. He thinks that openness about mental health is good, but then he says the very thing that brings back the stigma.

Every time the Secretary of State speaks, he makes it less likely that people will be open about their mental health. On behalf of all of us who have ever had a panic attack at work, or worse, can I say that that stigma stops people from getting treatment, it makes getting help harder, and it keeps people out of work, not in it? A Labour Government will take a totally different approach. We will not only ensure more appointments but have an extra 8,500 mental health staff. The last Labour Government delivered the highest patient satisfaction on record, and that is the record on which we will build.

The issue that we are discussing is bigger than just health; it is also about work. Because of our commitment to serve working people, we will make work better, too. We will have the new deal for working people, improving rights for the first time in a generation, and we will drive up employment in every region because we will devolve employment support and end the tick-box culture in jobcentres. We will tear down the barriers to work for disabled people and provide help for young people. That will get Britain working again.

Harold Wilson said that unemployment, above all else, made him political. Those of us who grew up seeing people thrown on the scrapheap in the ’80s and ’90s feel the same. Every young person out of work today will never forget whose hand was on the tiller when these Tories robbed them of hope. It is time for a change, and a general election.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response and the gracious manner in which she accepted my apology, which is much appreciated.

The hon. Lady said that she cannot be expected to comment on the PIP proposals, but I remind her that the work capability assessment proposals went through a consultation, and we still do not know where the Labour party stands on those. We have spoken about fit note reforms, we are setting up WorkWell, and in the autumn we will trial some of those fit note possibilities. We do not know where the Labour party stands at all on those matters.

One would have thought that given the central role that PIP plays in the welfare system in our society and country, the Labour party would have some kind of view on that benefit. But we hear precisely nothing on that matter because the Labour party has no plan. The consequence of that will be that, as under previous Labour Governments, the welfare bill will continue to spiral out of control. That will fall to hard-working families up and down the country to pay, by way of higher taxation.

The hon. Lady asked about the abolition of the work capability assessment, which, as she said, is set out in the White Paper. Those measures will not be due to come into effect until 2026. We will take into account the conclusions that may be drawn as a result of this consultation when we consider that matter. She raised numerous other questions, many of which are included in the consultation. I am sure that she will actively take part in the consultation as we work towards the answers to those questions.

I was rather surprised that the hon. Lady raised the NHS. This party is spending more on the national health service than at any time in its history, with a 13% real-terms increase in spending over the last couple of years, 21,000 additional nurses and 7,000 more doctors in the last 12 months alone, and from next year £2.4 billion additional spend on mental health services, to which she referred. That is on top of the additional £4.7 billion that the Chancellor previously set aside for more mental health treatments and, at the last fiscal event, 400,000 additional talking therapies within the national health service.

The hon. Lady concluded by referring to Harold Wilson’s comments on unemployment. I simply refer her to the fact that under every single Labour Government in the history of this country, unemployment has been higher at the end of their term of office than at the beginning.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

A constituent who has cerebral palsy has been in touch with me this afternoon to outline how he currently uses PIP. It gives him the freedom to live independently and work full time, as he uses it to buy mobility aides such as hoists and wheelchairs. His concern is that any changes to PIP might push those costs on to the NHS and reduce his flexibility to choose what to spend the money on and when. He does not want to be pushed into a cycle of renewal that may be too rapid and therefore cost the NHS more money. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that this consultation will enable those sorts of concerns to be highlighted and that, in the long term, it will give more choice and not restrict my constituent’s freedom?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for that question and for raising the issue of her constituent. The reassurance I can give her is that we are aiming for the best outcomes. There will be a number of ways in which those best outcomes may be achieved—that is the purpose of the consultation—but it is reasonable to at least explore the issue of whether cash transfer payments are always the right solution, particularly given the growth in mental health conditions we have seen in recent times. The final point I would make is that we are absolutely interested in examples of situations where people have lifelong regressive illnesses from which, unfortunately, they are not going to recover, and to ask whether, under those circumstances, it is right to require them to go through re-assessments.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Following today’s statement, the announcement made a couple of weeks ago and all the proposed changes, people are scared. They are scared because they rely on these payments, which have changed their lives. They have been able to access support that they otherwise would not have been able to get. It is very clear that the announced changes are not being created by disabled people, with disabled people at their heart of the decision-making process. This is a Government consultation and then people are being asked to input into it. It is totally different from the situation in Scotland, where the adult disability payment was created with disabled people in the room talking about the best way to make the payments work and the best way to have assessment processes. Basically, the answer that came back was, “Do not do them anything like the assessment processes for PIP.”

Everybody should have the income to live with dignity, whether or not they are able to work. I am massively concerned by the comments that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister allegedly made about people with mental health difficulties only facing the “ordinary difficulties of life”. It is very clear that anybody who is able to say that has not suffered from depression, and has not felt that absolute energy-sapping that comes alongside suffering depression or anxiety. These are real conditions. These are real things that people are struggling with. And the lack of the ability to work is just as serious for people with mental health conditions as it can be for people with physical health conditions.

I have a couple of specific questions. In relation to universal credit, it is a gateway benefit. Will the Secretary of State assure us that any changes that might be made to eligibility criteria around universal credit will be fully consulted on and fully discussed, particularly with anybody who administers benefits that are allowed through those gateway benefits?

Has the Secretary of State spoken to the Scottish Government about the creation of the adult disability payment with disabled people in the room, ensuring that at the forefront of every decision is dignity and respect? Those are the two key columns of the Scottish benefits system. The Secretary of State could learn a lot from that approach.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response to my statement. I reassure her that disabled people will be very much involved in the process and the consultation. It will be a 12-week consultation and of course we will take them, their comments and representative organisations extremely seriously.

The hon. Lady’s comment about the importance of recognising that many, many people unfortunately suffer from very serious mental health challenges is extremely well made. I am absolutely determined that whatever conclusions we draw from the consultation, they should lead us to a position where the Government are better able to support people who are in those circumstances.

On whether there will be questions in the consultation on the passporting of PIP into other benefits, the answer is yes. That is something we are most certainly consulting on.

On the Scottish equivalent of PIP—this is, of course, a devolved matter—yes, the Department has been in discussions with the equivalent officials in the civil service and the Scottish Government. We are looking forward to considering, as I know the Scottish Government will be, the independent review of that benefit, which is being conducted at the present time.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I ask the Secretary of State about his comments on the one-size-fits-all model not working if people incur very different costs from their disabilities? Surely he is not expecting people to send in invoices to prove how much support they need, so is he looking at having more tiers of award? For example, disability living allowance used to have three tiers, rather than two. Is that one of his options for trying to reduce costs?

[Mel Stride]

By mentioning “one size fits all”, I am saying that we should explore whether the approach we have at the moment has the best outcomes. We have much to learn from the experience of countries around the world that have a similar benefit but go about its organisation and application in a different way. New Zealand makes payments based on invoices for equipment submitted by those who receive the benefit. Norway does not have assessments in the way that we do; it relies more on evidence provided by medical practitioners. We should go into this with an open mind. Bear in mind that there has been no fundamental review of PIP for over a decade.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

PIP assessment providers confirm that worsening delays in NHS treatment are a big factor in the increase in the number of people applying for PIP. The Secretary of State has confirmed this afternoon that the work capability assessment is to be scrapped and replaced by PIP assessments. There are people who are too ill to work, but not disabled, and so not eligible for PIP. How will their support be assessed in the absence of work capability assessments?

[Mel Stride]

As I have set out, we will need to look at the conclusions that can be drawn from the consultation in the context of the replacement of the work capability assessment and PIP becoming the gateway to future universal credit health benefits, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. These are questions that are being asked in the consultation.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

In the spring of 2019, before I was elected, I was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. I was extremely ill with it, and could not work for several months, so I know for myself how debilitating that can be, but I also know that with treatment and support, you can lead a fulfilling career and a normal life that is extremely rewarding. I would have been devastated to have been out of the workforce for the long term. How will the reforms in the Green Paper help anxiety sufferers to get the treatment and support that they need to return to work, and also to take back their life?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for a powerful and moving contribution to today’s statement. I am pleased that she is in such fine form nowadays, knowing her as well as I do. The answer to her question lies in the consultation, and the recognition that the one-size-fits-all approach is not necessarily right. Those whom she describes may well be better served by receiving treatment, rather than cash transfer benefits. That is not a preconceived outcome that I have in my mind, but it is one of the possibilities on which we are seeking opinions.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The charity Sense has criticised the Government’s narrative around disability benefits, highlighting the divisive and deeply damaging language used, which further stigmatises some of the most vulnerable people in society. Disabled people have told Sense that they are sick with worry about whether they will lose their personal independence payments, which are vital—a lifeline—for them. Given the Tory cost of living crisis that we have been living through for multiple years, does the Secretary of State not think that disabled people need more support, not dangerous rhetoric that casts them as undeserving?

[Mel Stride]

We are certainly not stigmatising anybody—far from it. Indeed, in the consultation, it is explicitly recognised that there might be some disabled people who need additional help, beyond the help that they are getting at the moment. I made reference earlier to those who have lifetime progressive illnesses and conditions that, sadly, are not going to improve. The question is being asked: do we need to ask those individuals to attend reassessments and jump through bureaucratic hoops, with all the anxiety that may go with that, or should we have a better system that better looks after them?

[Dame Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I totally agree with the Secretary of State that everyone gets dignity from being in work, but he will be aware of the very high levels of unemployment experienced by those with learning disabilities and autism. Bearing in mind that able-bodied people over 50 struggle to find work, let alone those with a disability or long-term health condition, what does he propose doing to change the attitude of employers, so that they recognise that everyone has a skill and a role to play, and that everyone is an asset?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really pertinent question. She will be familiar with the Buckland review, which has reported. I was very keen to pursue that review when it came across my desk, and I made my officials and the necessary infrastructure available to ensure that it was able to go ahead. It addresses many of the issues to which my hon. Friend rightly points, in terms of employers accommodating and benefiting from those who have autism and other conditions.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Can I start by commending the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on her comments? They really went to the heart of some of what we are discussing. One of the challenges for the Government in talking about PIP is that they started this whole conversation by referring to the back to work plan, which makes many disabled people feel that this is about getting them back to work and reducing the overall welfare budget, when PIP is supposed to be about ensuring that they get the right support for their disabilities. On PIP, a big challenge that all MPs deal with is the number of errors in the system, and particularly the number of cases that end up at a tribunal. If we are looking into having a system that targets support better, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that it will actually be a better system, with fewer errors?

[Mel Stride]

There were two points there. First, errors in the benefits system—overpayments, underpayments and so on—are relatively rare. Secondly, on how we approach those who have long-term sickness or disability, the hon. Lady will see, if she refers to the back to work plan, that we are giving the 2.8 million people on those long-term benefits the opportunity to try work without fear of losing those benefits at all. We have made that extremely explicit. That is simply freeing up the system, and trying to get rid of some of the barriers that those people otherwise face.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I need to read the detail, but on the face of it, there is much to be welcomed in the Secretary of State’s statement. However, there are 2.6 million DLA and PIP working-age recipients and their families who will no doubt be concerned about the future of their support, so can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will tread carefully and think really carefully about tone and the language that we use, and that we will listen to those with lived experience and the charities that support them?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend; he has done a great deal in the important area that this statement and consultation are addressing. As he knows, my door is always open to him, at every step along the way, so that I can listen to his thoughts. I can assure him that questions of tone, language, and treading carefully are absolutely at the forefront of my mind.

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

There are 4,500 people in Newcastle Central who are out of the workforce and economically inactive due to disability or ill health. The Government have failed them when it comes to the benefits system, failed them when it comes to supporting them to work, which is so important, and failed them when it comes to the NHS. How will the £46 billion black hole in the Government’s plan to abolish national insurance payments enable the Government to fix their failings?

[Mel Stride]

On the hon. Lady’s political points, I should point out that economic inactivity is lower today than in every single year of the last Labour Government—that is our record, compared with her party’s. She will know full well that reducing the £46 billion national insurance figure still further, and finally eliminating it, is a very long-term aspiration. I understand why the Labour party tried to make it more than that. What is more than that is the £28 billion that her party suggests will be made available through its energy and net zero offering, which it is still talking about to the electorate.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State’s approach as being entirely realistic, given that the disability benefits system is not consistently providing support in the way that it was meant to. He is also right to take a strategic look, because he is correct that the understanding of disability and ill health has changed quite significantly in Britain, in some ways for the better, and there is an imperative to consider that, in the light of our labour market and the broader economy.

The Secretary of State is also correct to be comprehensive in his approach in today’s Green Paper, the prior White Paper and other connected work. Will he also be comprehensive in delivering on those measures, across Government? Can he give us assurances about the way that he is setting up for the work that will need to be done if this is to be a success, including with the NHS and local authorities, for those who need support with their disability or ill health? It is my understanding that the NHS perhaps knows less than it could about how to help people, holistically and individually, to move back into work, or with the things that they need and care about.

Finally, how is the Secretary of State working with employers to ensure that we unlock the workforce productivity needed in this country?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her very astute comments, which are built on her great experience of the exact issues that we are discussing, both as Secretary of State and, before that, as a very successful Minister for this area in the Department for Work and Pensions. She is absolutely right to recognise that society has changed a great deal in the 10 years since this benefit was fundamentally reviewed. I will, of course, continue to work very closely with my colleagues in the national health service and the Department of Health and Social Care. We collaborated on setting up WorkWell, which will be rolled out in 15 of the 42 health areas of England this autumn, bringing together the world of work and healthcare.

The White Paper specifically invites thoughts on how local authorities could be more involved in PIP or any successor. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention employers, and I have no doubt that she is aware of the two consultations we have run on increasing occupational health, in which employers have a particularly important role to play.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State questions the need to reassess certain groups. After visiting my local Motor Neurone Disease Association support group, I can tell him that those with motor neurone disease are one group who absolutely do not need or deserve reassessment.

On the wider point about mental health conditions, I hope that the Secretary of State will talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I have had many experiences of constituents waiting months, if not years, for the assessment of neurodivergent conditions or mental health support. We clearly cannot address the issues that he wants to address in the consultation if we do not fix the NHS workforce crisis.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about mental health, and I can reassure him, as I reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), that we will continue to work very closely with the DHSC on the proposals as they emerge. In response to an earlier question, I mentioned that the Chancellor has brought forward funding for 400,000 additional NHS talking therapies, for example, which may be an important part of what we develop.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Compassion has to be at the heart of this consultation. I have seen patients who had to be reassessed repeatedly, which does not seem fair, but I have also seen patients who do not engage with services and do not take medication, yet are signed off, which is not compassionate either. One practical way forward is to bring DWP closer to GP surgeries, so that people can have their hand held when they get to a diagnosis, whether it is of anxiety or a physical complaint, or whether they are recovering from an operation. Will the Minister consider that in the consultation? DWP joining up with primary care would be a fantastic way to help GPs help their patients—and to help the DWP.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for a sensible set of questions. He refers to the importance of bringing GPs together with advice and support to get people into work. That is very much the focus of our fit note reforms, upon which we have a call for evidence at the moment.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his swift response to my request earlier this afternoon for support for the people at Everest in Treherbert, who look likely to lose their jobs in the next few days.

Depression and anxiety are real, are they not? It is not just a question of people pulling up their socks, as some in the crueller parts of the commentariat have suggested. All too often, talking therapies are least available in the areas with the highest levels of economic inactivity, so how are we going to change that?

On the intersection between mental health and physical health that is acquired brain injury, does the Department even know how many people who have had an acquired brain injury are in receipt of PIP or of universal credit? If the Minister does not know the answer today, will he write to me? If both he and his Department do not know the answer, as I bet is the case, will he make sure that the Department finds out before it implements something that could provide even more problems for people who are trying to get their lives back together?

[Mel Stride]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the jobs situation in his constituency. Let me reassure him that my Department will do whatever it can to assist with those circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that depression, anxiety and mental health conditions are very real, and in many cases extremely severe, which is why I am absolutely determined that we should do whatever we can, where appropriate, to provide as much support as possible to people. As for his question about acquired brain injury and how many PIP recipients are in that situation, I do not think he would expect me to know off the top of my head. It would be rather impressive if I did know. I will, as he has suggested, write to him.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

You have never impressed me before, and I have known you a very long time!

[Mel Stride]

That is probably fair. As the hon. Gentleman points out, he has known me for a very long time, and I recall that when we were at university together he was a young Conservative, as I was. How things have progressed, or perhaps I should say regressed, since then?

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that my proposals over the past few years to improve support in the workplace for mental health are essential as part of this programme of work? Does he also agree that one aspect of that, which I have raised repeatedly in my work and suggestions, would be to make sure that physical and mental health are given firm parity in the Health and Safety Executive guidelines? I believe that would help both employers and employees, both in my constituency and nationally.

[Mel Stride]

We are considering the issue of parity that my hon. Friend has raised. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of mental health support—occupational health support—within businesses, which is why we have consulted on that matter. I am particularly keen to see what we can do not just for large companies, but for small and medium-sized enterprises, to make sure that they engage more fully in that respect.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

A considerable number of constituents have already contacted me because they are worried about what the Government are proposing; the key message they want to get across is that having disabilities or a serious mental illness is not their choice and not something they have control over. The Secretary of State mentions tailored support an awful lot in his statement. My experience is that when people with disabilities have engagement with the system and have to go through the process of making an application, being assessed and so on, that is a cause of great anxiety and often the decisions are wrong. If he is proposing more tailored support and more engagement with bureaucracy, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis, how is he going to get it right? He has not managed to get it right so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I am absolutely determined that we are not going to be seeing more bureaucracy. Indeed, I set out that one question we are exploring in the consultation relates to those who, sadly, have conditions from which they are not going to recover or improve. In those circumstances, I want to see less bureaucracy and a system where we are not having to reassess people in a superfluous way, causing anxiety and putting them to that inconvenience. The other points that the hon. Lady raises are of course exactly the kind of questions we are asking in the consultation, and I urge the constituents who have written to her to engage in that consultation process over the next three months.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of focusing on what people can do, rather than what they cannot, and it is worth noting that there are 2.2 million more disabled people in work than 10 years ago. However, as he mentioned, the benefits system is not just about work; it is about ensuring people live full and independent lives. He said that during the consultation there will be engagement with disabled people and their representative organisations, which is critical, but each individual’s needs are personal to them, so how will he ensure as many voices as possible are listened to during the consultation?

[Mel Stride]

The consultation will be very thorough. It is available in accessible formats to ensure we cater to the greatest extent that we can, and that we get the best possible and most universal feedback. I am pleased that my hon. Friend spoke to the issue of the employment of disabled people. In 2017, we set a 10-year target of a million more disabled people in employment; we broke that target in five years rather than 10.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Announcing that disabled people suffering from certain conditions will no longer receive support payments, but instead get improved access to treatment, is one of the most absurd policies to have come out of this Government in the past 14 years. The Government plan relies on imagined brilliant mental healthcare support being available. Is the Minister even aware how long people have to wait for treatment after being referred? After 14 years of this Tory Government gutting our NHS and our mental healthcare, even basic access to treatment does not exist, let along the improved access the Minister is relying on in the fantasy world he lives in.

[Mel Stride]

I simply do not recognise the comments the hon. Gentleman has made about our national health service. There are more people working in the national health service than at any time in its history: 21,000 more nurses and 7,000 more doctors in the past year alone. We are spending a record sum on the national health service. I will not give chapter and verse, as I did earlier, as to the other things we are doing, but we are completely committed to the health and mental health of people up and down the country. There will be new ways of doing things. If we do not have a grown-up conversation, as I describe it, about those matters, we will not discover those new ways. WorkWell is a completely new way of addressing issues, such as mental health, and encouraging people to stay or go back into work. It did not exist 18 months ago; it came about because we consulted people and came up with a solution.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I would like to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, and he has made a number of important points, but those 2.6 million people and their families who will have heard his statement will be absolutely terrified. A lot of them will feel that the reforms are just about providing some kind of cuts to services. I believe that we need to try to support those people and put compassion at the heart of our welfare system. There are reports of up to 2 million people waiting for mental health treatment at the moment, so does the Secretary of State believe that in this “compassionate” review, where we are going to have a “grown-up conversation”, we will be able to see more money invested to ensure that those 2 million people can get more mental health support?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend raises important points that are core to the consultation that is being carried out. The corollary to my hon. Friend’s argument is that we should not do anything and stay with a system that has not been revisited for over a decade, despite the fact that the terrain has changed substantially, not least in terms of the increase in those suffering from mental health conditions. I say no to that. We need to have a grown-up conversation about these matters if we are to provide better support for the people whom hon. Members across the House care about.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister is right: economic inactivity rates have soared because of ill health, and where possible we want those people to get back into work. It is for their own good. It is also for the good of the hard-working taxpayers to have those costs minimised. However, given that these proposals come at the tail end of a Government, who have just weeks or months to go, I doubt very much that the measures will become a reality for many people. I have one question for the Minister: as this issue is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, has he had any discussions with the Executive about these proposals? If he has, what response did he get? Should the Executive go in a different direction, what will the economic consequences be for the Northern Ireland Executive’s budget?

[Mel Stride]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the importance of work in the context of mental health. That is my strongly held belief. He is also right to raise the issue of the fiscal sustainability of our welfare system. If the public are to continue to have confidence in that system, we must get the balance right between the requirements of the taxpayer and our absolute determination to support those most in need of help.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the Northern Ireland Executive. He is right: it is possible for Northern Ireland to decide to manage its benefits in a different way to England. That is not traditionally what has happened. Traditionally, Northern Ireland has followed the moves that we have made. As to discussions, absolutely, there are always close, ongoing discussions between my Department and our counterparts in Northern Ireland.

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

The Secretary of State has said that the Government’s approach is fair and compassionate. Can he tell me what is compassionate about the language used by the Prime Minister over the past fortnight, when he has referred to a “sick note culture”, implied that people who are forced to rely on benefits do so as a lifestyle choice, and, today, talked about the arrests, seizures and crackdowns on benefits claimants? The Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which comprises the major charities that we have all worked with, described the speech as “chilling”, “threatening” and “stigmatising”. Does the Secretary of State not realise that the language that the Prime Minister has used increases prejudice against disabled people and contributes to the escalation of hate crime against disabled people?

[Mel Stride]

The Prime Minister shares my view, which is that it is really important that we achieve the best possible outcomes for the people whom we are discussing in this statement. He cares a great deal, and I think he said at the end of his speech that he wanted to help many people, some of whom are watching the screen flickering away while their opportunities drift off into the distance—or words to that effect. That speaks from the heart. That says that we have a Prime Minister who cares deeply that opportunities in our society should be made as widely available as possible. That is a view, a characteristic and a quality that I admire and that I share with him.

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

The Secretary of State has upset many disabled people and organisations with his clumsy, negative and juvenile approach. Mind, for example, has asked for a grown-up conversation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box today that there has never been a review of personal independence payments, but there have been two independent reviews commissioned by the Department, so perhaps he could correct the record when he gets to his feet. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so when will the Department publish its assessment of the impact of these latest cuts on disabled people using PIP to support themselves in work?

[Mel Stride]

It is the case that there has not been a fundamental review of PIP on the basis that that has subsequently led to a change in that benefit. Therefore, it is the case that that benefit has remained fundamentally the same for more than decade—it actually came in in 2013, as the hon. Gentleman will know. On what assessments may or may not be made available, I think they will come at a point when the Government arrive at their conclusions having conducted the consultation.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Members of this House may remember that I had to take a leave of absence from this role three years ago because I have post-traumatic stress disorder. I can tell the House that the insinuation that mental health conditions are not debilitating, do not affect people’s ability to go about their daily life or to go to work, and do not incur additional costs could not be further from the truth. The Prime Minister’s comments about so-called “sick note culture” and the changes that the Government are proposing will do nothing to help people with mental illnesses, and will just make their lives harder. Why are the Government setting back the clock on the acceptance of mental illness as a disability instead of truly tackling the crisis in mental health support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I am at pains to say this: every time I have come to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, I think I have made it extremely clear that serious mental health conditions are very real. I take them very seriously, as I think does everyone in this House. I say to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] This is where we need a grown-up conversation. [Interruption.] This is really important. We need a proper conversation about this, because if at every stage, whenever a Minister suggests that we need to look at a particular area, their motives get impugned in the way that the hon. Lady has—[Interruption.] She inferred that I am actually saying that mental health conditions should be trivialised in some way. I am definitely not saying that.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My constituent Elizabeth has been a very hard worker, but also someone who has suffered from ill health. She came to see me at my surgery on Friday to express her alarm about the Prime Minister’s speech on 19 April, his proposals for sick notes, and what she sees as his lack of respect for the professionalism of general practitioners. If the issue came up in the Chamber, she asked me to ask the relevant Minister this question: how can a random DWP assessor, faced with a complete stranger, based on the briefest of interactions, be relied upon to produce a more accurate and objective assessment of a patient’s condition than her own general practitioner?

[Mel Stride]

I know the Prime Minister shares the view that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our GPs, right up and down the country. They have a highly pressurised job, and they do it extremely well. DWP assessors are highly trained individuals, and there are very clear guidelines on how assessments should be fairly conducted. They are, as the hon. and learned Lady will know, open to appeal where that is necessary. She mentions GPs. As part of the assessments, which are concluded by a DWP team member, rather than the assessor themselves, taking into account all the evidence, it may well be that GPs have an input into many of the decisions.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State must understand that the rhetoric coming from the Government over the past few weeks has been brutal, divisive and inducing unimaginable terror in the two thirds of people already in destitution who have a chronic health condition or disability. The prospect of further cuts is making the situation worse. Can he confirm whether he expects overall Government PIP spending to be reduced and, if so, by how much, and what assessment he has made of how his proposals will affect those who are already in material deprivation?

[Mel Stride]

The presumption that the hon. Lady makes is that the alternative to consulting on a different and potentially much better way forward is to do nothing at all. To me, that is unacceptable. In terms of ensuring that we truly support all those who need support, I have already given that reassurance from the Dispatch Box. It is made very clear in the consultation that we recognise that there will be people who need more support than they are receiving at the moment, but we need to have that conversation in order to get the best outcomes.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Language matters, as we have heard, and the Government have been warned that the language and rhetoric—perhaps not from the Secretary of State himself but from others—risks minimising the impact of mental health conditions, which are real and serious. What are the Government’s plans to ensure that proper treatments are available—not just talking therapies but whatever treatment is appropriate—to ensure that people with mental health conditions are treated appropriately?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point: the prevalence of mental health conditions in our country has grown. There are many reasons for that—I know the Labour Party like to say it is all about the NHS, but it is about many other things, not least social media among young people. There are many causes. The consultation will look at exactly the question she quite rightly raises. She mentioned the NHS talking therapies; I think that, particularly for some less severe mental health conditions, combined with work, they can make a real difference. I was very pleased when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought in 400,000 more of those talking therapies at his last fiscal event.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Back in 2018, a bad concussion left me out of work for several months. Over time, I became deeply depressed, worried and anxious that I would never get back to full-time work at all. I was lucky that my employer was able to find and to pay for me to get the support I needed to get back to work, and I am lucky enough to be here today. However, for many across the country that simply is not the reality they face. Why are the Government not focusing on making sure everyone has the support they need to get back into work, rather than falling back into the kind of political posturing that will only add to the stress and anxiety that thousands already feel?

[Mel Stride]

If I may say so, first, I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is now fit and well and I am sorry he went through the difficult time that he describes. We are doing a huge amount; he may or may not be familiar with universal support, which is there not only to place the kind of people he has described into work, but, critically, to stay with them for a period of up to 12 months to make sure they have the support to hold that job down. We know that work is good for those with mental health conditions. I have already referred to WorkWell, which brings together those who have mental health challenges and work coaches who are able to see how work can fit within their recovery programme. We are very much doing those things. If he would like to see me at some point after this statement, I would be happy to sit down with him and talk him through some of the other approaches we are taking.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

Today’s statement has been made necessary by the huge deterioration in the nation’s health and mental health since the pandemic. I think the whole House has to take responsibility, because this House voted for draconian lockdowns that devastated mental health, particularly among the young. This House voted to mandate untested experimental treatments, threatening people that they would lose their jobs if they did not take them, while giving immunity from prosecution to the manufacturers for their dangerous and defective products. Will the Minister do the best thing he can for public mental health by assuring the British public that these mistakes have been learned from and will never be inflicted upon them again?

[Mel Stride]

I am afraid I simply do not subscribe to the theories that the hon. Gentleman promotes. I think it is probably best to leave it at that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to questions.

Work and Health Update

Mel Stride Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Together with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), later today we will publish a Command Paper launching the fit note reform call for evidence.

Good work is good for health. We know that work positively impacts people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing, and through our ambitious employment package, announced at the spring Budget in 2023, and our back to work plan, we are supporting people in their journey back to work by addressing their needs and empowering them to fulfil their potential.

However, there are currently 2.8 million people of working age who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness. We know that 10 million “not fit for work” fit notes are issued every year. This represents a missed opportunity to help people get the appropriate support they may need to remain in work. We should reform the fit note process so that it starts with an objective assessment of what someone can do with the right support, rather than what they cannot. A new fit note process will ensure people get the right help for their needs, reducing pressure on GPs and helping to free up thousands of GP appointments.

At autumn statement 2023, the Chancellor announced £24 million to begin designing and implementing fit note trailblazers in a number of integrated care systems in England. These trailblazers will test how to give people receiving a fit note for a prolonged period of time the support they need to stay in or get back to work. These trailblazers will build on the WorkWell service pilots providing integrated health and work support locally.

The call for evidence published today will gather evidence to assess the impact of the current fit note process in supporting work and health conversations. It asks stakeholders how they would like to see the fit note process change to better support people to start, stay and succeed in work.

While fit note policy and regulations apply to Great Britain, fit notes are delivered within health systems, which are devolved. Collaboration is key to achieving our ambitions, and we are committed to working with stakeholders across the United Kingdom as we progress fit note reform ahead of a formal consultation later this year. The call for evidence therefore seeks a broad range of views and ideas from those with lived experiences, healthcare professionals and employers.

This is an important part of our next generation of welfare reforms and the Government’s ambition to improve health outcomes, and help people get access to the support they need to return to, remain and thrive in work.

[HCWS417]

Fit Note Reform: Call for Evidence

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins), we wish to inform the House of our intention to publish a Command Paper launching “Fit Note Reform: Call for Evidence”.

At autumn statement 2023, the Chancellor announced plans to begin to test how we can give people receiving a fit note for a prolonged period of time the support they need to stay in or get back to work.

As part of these plans, we intend to publish a call for evidence in the coming weeks which will seek views and ideas from healthcare professionals, employers, individuals, and other stakeholders on how they would like to see the fit note process change to better support people to start, stay and succeed in work.

This is an important part of Government’s ambition to tackle economic inactivity due to long term sickness, improve health outcomes, and help people get access to the support they need to return to, remain and thrive in work.

[HCWS402]

Women’s State Pension Age

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement to provide an interim update on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigation into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. I am grateful to the ombudsman for conducting this investigation.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and it is important to set out the wider context and our initial understanding of the report itself. The fact that it has taken over five years for the ombudsman to produce the final report reflects the complexity of this matter. The period that the investigation considers spans around 30 years, dating back to the decision that Parliament took in 1995 to equalise the state pension age for men and women gradually from 2010. Since then, changes have been made through a series of Acts of Parliament introduced by successive Governments, which resulted in the state pension age for women rising to 65 by November 2018, and then to 66 by October 2020.

The announcement in 1993 about equalising the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. The changes were about maintaining the right balance between the sustainability of the state pension, fairness between generations and ensuring a dignified retirement in later life. Women retiring today can still expect to receive the state pension for more than 21 years on average—over two years longer than for men. Had the Government not equalised the state pension age, women would have been retiring today at 60, and they could have spent, on average, over 40% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension. That would have been unfair, because, by the 1990s, life expectancy had significantly increased compared with 1948, when the state pension age for women was set at 60.

Turning to the investigation itself, it is important to be clear about what the ombudsman has not said, particularly following some of the inaccurate and misleading commentary since the report was published. The ombudsman has looked not at the decision to equalise the state pension age, but at how that decision was communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions. The report hinges on the Department’s decisions over a narrow period between 2005 and 2007, and on the effect of those decisions on individual notifications. The ombudsman has not found that women have directly lost out financially as a result of DWP’s actions. The report states:

“We do not find that it”—

meaning DWP’s communication—resulted in the complainants

“suffering direct financial loss”.

The final report has not said that all women born in the 1950s will have been adversely impacted, as many women were aware that the state pension age had changed.

In his stage 1 report, the ombudsman found that

“between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet.”

The report also confirms that accurate information about changes to the state pension age was publicly available in leaflets, through DWP’s pension education campaigns, through DWP’s agencies, and on its website. However, when considering the DWP’s actions between August 2005 and December 2007, the ombudsman came to the view that those actions resulted in 1950s-born women receiving individual notice later than they might, had different decisions been made.

It is important to remember that during the course of the ombudsman’s investigation, the state pension age changes were considered by the courts. In 2019 and 2020, the High Court and the Court of Appeal respectively found no fault with the actions of the DWP. The courts made it clear that under successive Governments dating back to 1995, the action taken was entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. During these proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to conclude as a fact that there had been

“adequate and reasonable notification given by the publicity campaigns implemented by the Department over a number of years.”

The ombudsman has taken five years to produce his final report. As the chief executive of the ombudsman herself has set out, the DWP has fully co-operated with the ombudsman’s investigation throughout this time and provided thousands of pages of detailed evidence. We continue to take the work of the ombudsman very seriously, and it is only right that we now fully and properly consider the findings and details of what is a substantial document. The ombudsman has noted in his report the challenges and complexities of this issue. In laying the report before Parliament, the ombudsman has brought matters to the attention of the House, and we will provide a further update to the House once we have considered the report’s findings.

This Government have a strong track record of supporting all pensioners. In 2023-24, we will spend over £151 billion on support for pensioners. That is 5.5% of GDP, and includes around £124 billion for the state pension. We are committed to ensuring that the state pension remains the foundation of income in retirement now and for future generations. That is why we are honouring the triple lock by increasing the basic and new state pensions by 8.5% from next month. This sees the full rate of the new state pension rise by £900 a year and it follows last year’s rise of 10.1%.

We now have 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty after housing costs than there were in 2010. Our sustained commitment to the triple lock demonstrates our determination to continue to combat pensioner poverty in the future. That is why we have reformed the state pension as well as workplace pensions, improving the retirement outcomes for many women. Our commitment to pensioners is why we introduced automatic enrolment, which has seen millions more women saving into a workplace pension.

This Government are committed to supporting pensioners in a sustainable way, providing them with a dignified retirement while also being fair to them and to taxpayers. I have set out our strong track record of backing our pensioners. I have also set out our commitment to the full and proper consideration of the ombudsman’s report. I note that the ombudsman has laid his final report on this issue before Parliament, and of course I can assure the House that the Government will continue to engage fully and constructively with Parliament, as we have done with the ombudsman.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and thank the ombudsman and his staff for all their hard work. This is a serious report that requires serious consideration. The ombudsman has rightly said that it is for the Government to respond but that Parliament should also consider its findings. Labour Members will look carefully at the report too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.

The Secretary of State says that he will provide a further update to the House on this matter. When will he do so after the House returns from its Easter recess? This has been going on for years. He rightly says that issues around the changes to the state pension age have spanned multiple Parliaments, but those of us who have been around a little while will remember that the turning point that sparked the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign was the Pensions Act 2011, in which the then Chancellor, George Osborne decided to accelerate the state pension age increases with very little notice. His comment that this

“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”

understandably angered many women. At the time, Labour tabled amendments that would have ensured proper notice was given so that women could plan for their retirement, which would have gone some way towards dealing with this problem.

The ombudsman began investigating how changes to the state pension age were communicated in 2019. In the same year, the High Court ruled that the ombudsman could not recommend changes to the state pension age itself or the reimbursement of lost pensions, because that had been decided by Parliament.

The ombudsman’s final report, published last week, says that, in 2004, internal research from the Department for Work and Pensions found that around 40% of the women affected knew about the changes to the state pension age. Does that remain the Government’s assessment? What is their assessment of the total number of women who would receive compensation based on the ombudsman’s different options? How many of them are the poorest pensioners on pension credit? How many are already retired or have, sadly, passed away? Given the Department already knew there were problems with communicating changes to the state pension age, why did the Government press ahead with the changes in the 2011 Act in the way they did, and in the way that sparked the WASPI campaign?

The Government are currently committed to providing 10 years’ notice of future changes to the state pension age, but Labour’s 2005 pension commission called for 15 years’ notice. Have the Government considered the merits of a longer timeframe, and how they would improve communications in future? Labour is fully committed to guaranteeing that information about any future changes to the state pension age is provided in a timely and targeted way that is, wherever possible, tailored to individual needs. Will the Government now do the same?

Crucially, the Secretary of State omitted to say that the ombudsman took the rare decision to ask Parliament to intervene on this issue because the ombudsman strongly doubts that the Department will provide a remedy. In the light of these concerns, and in order to aid Parliament in its work, will the Secretary of State now commit to laying all the relevant information about this issue, including all impact assessments and related correspondence, in the House of Commons Library so that lessons can be learned and so that Members across the House can properly do their job? Our current and future pensioners deserve nothing less.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response, not least on the apparent points of agreement between us. We accept that there are strong feelings about these complex issues, and she is right to say that they must be given serious consideration and that we should listen respectfully to all those affected. She asks when the Government will return to the House with a further update, and I can assure her that there will be no undue delay.

The hon. Lady made a slightly political point about the 2011 Act, and I gently remind her that the ombudsman’s report focuses on the period between 2005 and 2007, when her party was in government.

The hon. Lady asked a series of questions about various assessments based on the findings in the report. Of course, that goes to the heart of my response, which is—and I think she agrees with this—that we should look closely at the report in order to make those assessments.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about notice of changes to state pension age, it has always been the position that that should be adequate. Indeed, in the last review that I undertook of it, there was a delay in the decision to increase the state pension age to 68 into the next Parliament. Among other reasons, that was to allow for just that point to be addressed.

What is particularly important now is that we will fully engage with Parliament, as we did with the ombudsman. On the hon. Lady’s point about the ombudsman, its chief executive stated on Sky News on Thursday, the day the report was published:

“The Government, the DWP, completely co-operated with our report, with our investigation, and over the period of time we have been working they have provided us with the evidence that we asked for.”

That is our record in this particular matter, but may I once again assure the House that the Government will continue to engage fully and constructively with Parliament, as we have done with the ombudsman?

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and his emphasis that this is a complex matter—of course it is. However, the WASPI women have been waiting five years for the outcome of the ombudsman’s report. In his report and subsequent to it, when he wrote to various Select Committee Chairs from across the House, he gently encouraged us to keep a weather eye on how quickly the Government come forward with a solution. I recognise that this is an interim update, but I gently press my right hon. Friend: the WASPI women have been waiting five years for the ombudsman and they will not want to wait for a Select Committee inquiry into this report in order to see action from the Government.

[Mel Stride]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s question. Let me reassure her, as I have just reassured the House, that there will be no undue delay in our approach to this matter. We engaged fully with the ombudsman— that included more than 1,000 pages of evidence and a full commentary in respect of the previous interim report that it published. This report is more than 100 pages in length and it is very detailed, so it is only right that we do, in an appropriate manner, give it the due attention that it deserves.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The timid response from the Labour party is truly shocking. Regardless of what we have just heard, WASPI women have at long last been vindicated, after five long years, by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report. Some 3.8 million women were impacted, of whom 270,000 have died without ever receiving their rightful pension.

Despite what the Secretary of State says, the verdict of the ombudsman’s report on the Department for Work and Pensions is damning and unequivocal, and weasel words will not change that. Women born in the 1950s had their pension age raised with little or no notice, and there have been failings at every turn by successive UK Governments. The report states that these women are owed compensation; that the DWP has refused to comply and must be held accountable for doing so; and that there was a failure to adequately inform women of the state pension age change. Those failures have had a devastating impact on lives, retirements and the financial and emotional wellbeing of WASPI women. Many have been reduced to poverty after being robbed of tens of thousands of pounds of pension, and that suffering has been caused by and is the responsibility of this broken Westminster system and this cosy Westminster consensus.

Financial redress is vital for these women and is in the interests of justice. Clearly Labour is not interested in that, but what we need from the Government is a commitment to prompt compensation for these women—with no barriers erected to prevent access to it—that recognises their financial loss and distress. We cannot have a situation where WASPI women have their campaign for justice vindicated and yet continue to be ignored. Any attempt to do that will rightfully result in a backlash.

We in the SNP stand shoulder to shoulder with these women, who have been abandoned and betrayed by the UK Government and the future Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what it will take to compensate these women? Do we need another TV drama to embarrass and shame the Government into doing the right thing? These women are not going away but the longer this injustice is left unresolved, the greater the number of WASPI women who will die without seeing their pension—shame on this place.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady refers to “doing the right thing”. Doing the right thing by the people the hon. Lady describes is to look very closely, carefully and diligently at the report. It has been five years in gestation. It is detailed, runs to 100 pages and draws upon a vast reservoir of evidence. It is only right and proper, given that the report was published on Thursday and today is Monday, for all of us to have time to properly consider its findings. [Interruption.]

The hon. Lady refers to the general situation of pensioners. All I can say is that I am pleased and reassured that pensions generally are a reserved matter. We have been able to increase the state pension, last year by 10.1% and this coming year by 8.5%. We have pressed hard on promoting pension credit for poorer pensioners. We had a cost of living payment. Because it is a reserved matter, this Government were able to provide £300 to pensioners last November, alongside their winter fuel payments. As a consequence of that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Lady has asked a question. Please listen to the answer.

[Mel Stride]

I was merely pointing out the fact that we stand four-square behind pensioners across the United Kingdom to support them. That is why under this Government there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, after housing costs, than there were in 2010.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

WASPI women across my Stroud constituency have campaigned consistently and constructively. I have grown very fond of them as we have discussed the subject over the years. As the Secretary of State knows, at the heart of the issue are women saying that they were left unable to plan or that their plans for the future were scuppered, so the focus should be on laying out a timetable as soon as possible. The issue of compensation is key to many of these women, who will have read the report. It is right that the Secretary of State and his Department look through the report in detail, but will he lay out a timetable, tell these women what is and is not possible, and manage their expectations as soon as possible, because they have waited?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is a member of the Work and Pensions Committee and I welcome her question. I reassure her that there will be no undue delay. I thank her for recognising that we need to look at these matters with great care. That does not mean coming forward with some of the things that the Scottish National party may wish us to do on a Monday, given that the report landed with us only last Thursday.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, as I do, that those affected should not have to wait for the outcome of a Select Committee inquiry before learning the Government’s response? The equalisation of the state pension age was legislated for in 1995, giving 15 years’ notice to those affected. The 2011 changes, which accelerated the process, gave much less than 10 years’ notice to those affected. Is one of the lessons about what has gone wrong that we must ensure major changes of this kind provide at least 10 years’ notice, or preferably 15 years’ notice, before those changes take effect?

[Mel Stride]

The right hon. Gentleman raises the potential role of Select Committees in these matters. As the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, he would have the authority to implement such ideas, if he were minded to do so. However, it is important that I and my Department seriously consider the findings in the report before we come to our conclusions, and that we then come to the House to present those conclusions. That is the most important point.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Having seen the report, I think this issue has gone on long enough and we now need to choose a compensation scheme and get it finished. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will have made their mind up before the autumn fiscal event, so that we can see it set out by that date and know how much the costs will be?

[Mel Stride]

Whether there will be an autumn statement at all, and the date thereof, is not within my remit—indeed, I am not certain whether an autumn statement is pencilled in for any particular date, or otherwise. The most important thing is that we recognise—this message should go out loud and clear from the Dispatch Box today—that there should be no undue delay in coming to the appropriate conclusions on this matter.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The WASPI scandal has been a huge injustice for millions of women, including women in my constituency. The Secretary of State has said that he wants to continue to look in detail at the findings of the report, but surely he should be able to make an unambiguous commitment to compensation for these women. The ombudsman had to take the rare step of laying this before Parliament, due to the Department for Work and Pensions refusing to comply. Will the Secretary of State today set out a timeline for when he will come back to this House and say how he intends to ensure that these women are compensated fully?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is attempting to draw me into coming to premature conclusions on some of the findings in the report, which I am afraid I not going to do for the reasons I have already given. Once again on the issue of timing, there will be no undue delay.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is itself WASPI, having been conceived in the 1950s. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a failure by Government to comply with its recommendations would be almost completely unprecedented over the past 70 years, and would in effect drive a coach and horses through an integral part of our system of democratic checks and balances? With that in mind, will he confirm that his Department will work in full haste with Parliament to agree a mechanism for remedy? Will he outline the work he is carrying out to address further concerns that have been raised over systematic failure by the DWP over several decades to properly communicate future pension changes?

[Mel Stride]

At the heart of this matter is the imperative to ensure that we fully and carefully examine the findings contained in the report. I will not be drawn today on where we may end up in respect of those findings, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage fully and constructively with Parliament on these matters.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Women born in the 1950s entered into a contract with the state, but the coalition Government reneged on that, denying them their pensions. In their fight for justice, thousands have died. Since the ombudsman’s report, over 100 have passed away, and many continue to live in poverty. Shamefully, the Government are now delaying action on the ombudsman’s findings, and today have remained silent about proper compensation. Will the Secretary of State apologise for their long wait for justice?

[Mel Stride]

On the Pensions Act 2011, as the hon. Lady will know from the report, the window that has been particularly examined and on which these considerations turn is 2005 to 2007—a time when the Labour party was in office. But on a general and non-partisan point, my view is that we owe it to all women who were born in the 1950s to properly look at the report in detail, as I have described, and at the same time to engage with Parliament in an appropriate way.

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

My right hon. Friend is correct to refer to the complexity of this situation. One aspect of that complexity is that these women have suffered the loss of an opportunity to plan appropriately for their futures. That is the consequence of the maladministration that the ombudsman has identified, and it will, of course, be different for each individual. Can he say anything about the work that his Department will now do to think about the appropriate remedy in such diverse circumstances? Will he also say, in supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) put to him, that maladministration must have consequences and therefore it is important for the Government to recognise, on behalf of previous Governments, that that maladministration must lead to some form of remedy?

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to refer, as I have done, to the complexities around this issue. He is understandably attempting to draw me into past comments on some of the findings in the report, which, for the reasons I have given, I will not be doing this afternoon. I reassure him that, whatever the conclusions or findings in the report, as I said in my statement, when these matters went to the Court of Appeal, the conclusion was that the High Court could treat as a matter of fact that

“there has been adequate and reasonable notification given by the…Department over a number of years.”

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Returning to maladministration, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s stage 1 report found clear maladministration in 2021 in the way that the DWP communicated those changes and that it did not pay attention to its own research showing that 1950s-born women did not know about the changes. Almost three years on, the DWP has not publicly accepted those findings. Will the Minister finally admit to the DWP’s failings that short-changed hundreds of thousands of 1950s WASPI women?

[Mel Stride]

Without being drawn into too much detail around the report, there is clearly an important distinction between those matters that have been found to be maladministration and those that have found to be maladministration and led to injustice. Setting that apart, as I have said previously, I do not think it is right for me today to start dissecting elements of the report and some of the conclusions that have been arrived at. We will go away and look very carefully at these matters and then engage with Parliament appropriately.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has set out the history of this issue. He will understand that my constituents who were affected wish, quite reasonably, to have a similar degree of clarity on the next steps and the timescale, and it is my job to communicate to him today their strength of feeling on that. I understand that he will not be able to set out that timescale today, but can he reassure the House that he has in his mind a timescale for these next steps?

[Mel Stride]

As I have said, there should be no undue delay, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that clarity is what is required. That is why I am stressing the point that clarity comes with careful consideration.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to all WASPI campaigners and stand in solidarity with them. I need also to declare that I am somebody who was born in the 1950s. The treatment of the 1950s-born women in relation to changes in women’s state pension has led to great hardship for many. One woman in my constituency struggled to feed herself and had to sell her home as a result. The impact has been devastating. It is estimated that some 270,000 WASPI women have died since the start of the campaign in 2015 and that another dies every 13 minutes. I note the Minister’s comments that there will be no undue delay. Will he return to this House immediately after recess with a firm commitment to fast and fair compensation?

[Mel Stride]

I think we owe it to all of those to whom the hon. Lady refers to act without undue delay—that is a commitment that I have made—and to look at these matters extremely carefully and make sure that we allow time to do that effectively.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement, and am very grateful for it. I know that the Secretary of State is under pressure this afternoon, but having received a lot of correspondence from my Bracknell constituents, as other Members have from theirs, let me ask a very objective question: does he have a personal message for those seeking a definitive outcome?

[Mel Stride]

I think my statement is the message. We recognise that these are complicated issues. We have collaborated fully with the inquiry, to the satisfaction of the chief executive officer of the ombudsman. We will study the report’s findings very carefully, and engage with Parliament constructively, as we have done with the ombudsman.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

The Royal Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of Scotland sounds entirely otherworldly and quite funny, but that was not the case for the WASPI woman who came to my surgery in 2016. She retired expecting to get her state pension at 60, and had to apply to the society for relief. She had to sell her home because she could not afford her retirement, as she did not receive her pension. What remedies for compensation do the Government consider suitable for that constituent, and others of mine, and when will they receive them? The DWP has known about the issue for years and years.

[Mel Stride]

The example that the hon. Lady gives once again underlines in my mind the importance of proceeding with great diligence and looking at the findings of the report in great detail. As we all know, we received that report on Thursday; it is now Monday. Given its length, and the complexity of the issues under consideration, it is not unreasonable for us to take the time to look closely at its conclusions.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I add my voice to those calling for an urgent announcement of a redress scheme in response to the report. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the actions between 2005 and 2007 did not happen on his watch, or under any Conservative Government, but if he delays, he will stop being part of the solution and start to become part of the problem. When he introduces his redress scheme, he will need all the understanding and good will on both sides of the House that he can muster to deal with the undoubted complexities of distinguishing between the different kinds and levels of indirect loss in the report, so speed is vital.

[Mel Stride]

As my hon. Friend points out, the timing is important. I have made the commitment that we will proceed without undue delay.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Millions of women have suffered an injustice, including more than 200,000 in Wales and 4,000 in my constituency of Cynon Valley. While much of the ombudsman’s report is welcome, the compensation remedy is insufficient—indeed, it is insulting. In 2019, the Labour party pledged an average payment of £15,500. It is affordable, and the Government have saved in the region of £200 billion since the equalisation of the state pension age, yet they still have not pledged anything at all. Will the Minister please set a specific timeline so that we can have an urgent parliamentary process for MPs to set a compensation scheme that will give fair, appropriate and fast compensation to these women?

[Mel Stride]

On the timing, I have now given this reply from the Dispatch Box on several occasions: there will be no undue delay. On the specific matter that the hon. Lady raises relating to remedy, that is one of the findings within the report that, along with all the others, we will of course consider very carefully.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to highlight the commitment to the triple lock, that the state pension will raise by some £900 this year, that there are fewer people in pensioner poverty than ever before, and that, predictably, the failures here happened under a previous Government. Nevertheless, does he accept that hardship in principle has been caused, both to WASPI women on the Isle of Wight and nationally, and that a solution, while it clearly needs to be affordable, is needed to right a wrong that has taken place?

[Mel Stride]

Reaching the clarity that my hon. Friend would like requires us to have a close and careful look at the report, as I have been setting out. We will do that as quickly as we can—we will not introduce any undue delays—and consult Parliament in an appropriate manner, as we did with the ombudsman.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is not that difficult. The WASPI women have been screwed over by the state and made to wait for years. I understand that the ombudsman process had to be undertaken because the Government made that happen, but they could have faced up to the reality much sooner. Can the Secretary of State guarantee the 6,500 WASPI women in my constituency and those across the UK that he will not kick the can down the road past the next election and pass the buck to the Labour party, which cannot make a promise about this matter either? It is not good enough to stand in solidarity but take no action.

[Mel Stride]

On the question of time, I have made the position extremely clear. On the question of the report having had to gestate for five years, there was a delay of around two years because of the judicial review that went on in the middle of that process, so to suggest that the Government have in any way been holding things up is not fair or accurate. Indeed, as I have said the ombudsman chief executive has highlighted the good level of co-operation that there has been with my Department.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming so swiftly to the House in the wake of the ombudsman’s important report, which, as other hon. Members have said, requires a response. I pay tribute to the 4,000 WASPI women in my constituency who have been affected by the change. Although I welcome the important pension reforms that outlined, of which we can be proud, it is worth remembering that 68% of women born in the 1950s have relied on the state pension, as opposed to 44% of their male counterparts, because of baked-in inequalities that they experienced in much younger years: they started work before equalities legislation; they were not able to join pension schemes back in the day; and they made very definite choices about their caring responsibilities. For all those reasons, I see real injustice in this case. When he talks us through how this will be dealt with in Parliament, I hope to hear that there will be a role for individual MPs who have worked closely with their WASPI women to make representations on their behalf.

[Mel Stride]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to engage closely with Parliament, as we have done to date and with the ombudsman. She quite reasonably raises gender pension gaps. This Government have brought in and encouraged automatic enrolment—we have consulted on further changes that we are considering —which has led to a narrowing of that gap as it relates to private pensions. There is always more to do, but we are definitely serious about making further progress.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The WASPI women in Slough and across our country have been campaigning courageously and consistently for their rights for years. It is the Government’s duty to set out exactly how they will help those women and deliver justice. Given that someone’s entitlement to the state pension depends on how many years they have paid national insurance contributions, what will happen, under the Chancellor’s plans to abolish NICs, to those who are yet to retire? Will they still receive the state pension to which they have been contributing, or will their entitlements change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is a very assiduous and sensible person, and will know that party politics are at play in this issue. The Chancellor has been extremely clear that it is an aspiration to further bring down the level of national insurance across time—across several years, maybe even going beyond the next Parliament. He is quite right to say that, because we are a party that fundamentally believes in low tax.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

Given the demographics in North Norfolk, I probably have one of the most impacted constituencies in the country: over 5,000 WASPI women have been impacted there. We need to be sensible. We all recognise the financial climate that we are dealing with in this country, but the Secretary of State is a very decent man, and this weekend, the Prime Minister intimated that we have always tried to right injustices in this country. WASPI women will be watching this debate; can the Secretary of State at least throw them a lifeline from the Dispatch Box, and give some sort of commitment that we in this country will do everything we possibly can to support as many WASPI women who have been impacted as we can?

[Mel Stride]

The important point is that we must carefully consider the report in its entirety—not just one aspect of it, but all aspects. I have undertaken to the House to do that without undue delay.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The ombudsperson was established to decide when things were not necessarily illegal, but had been done in a way that involved malpractice and was wrong, and to decide when a person in the middle needed to come forward and say, “You need to sort this out.” That is exactly what the ombudsperson has now said: their judgment is clear that maladministration happened. There was a question as to whether what was done was illegal or not; in the event, it was not. Rather than hiding behind court judgments, will the Minister apologise on behalf of the Department for the maladministration? Also, will he at least commit to a remedy? I am not saying what that remedy has to be, but will he give reassurance that a remedy will be found? Those are two easy things that he should be able to do now.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are hiding behind the court cases. I have explained the relevance of those cases and the conclusions to which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal came in 2019 and 2020. We are not hiding behind anything; in fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because I read out the quote earlier, on Thursday 21 March—last Thursday—the chief executive of the ombudsman said on Sky News:

“The Government, the DWP, completely co-operated with our report, with our investigation, and over the period of time we have been working they have provided us with the evidence that we asked for.”

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

WASPI women in my constituency have campaigned relentlessly for many years, and I pay tribute to all of them, particularly Rosie Dickson, who has done so much at various events around Glasgow, and who came down to London to put her case directly in Parliament. WASPI women are watching this debate, and when the Minister says that the Government will carefully consider things, they hear, “More delay.” What they hear is that they will not get the money to which they are entitled, and that too many more women will die before they see a penny from this Government. When will they receive their money?

[Mel Stride]

Given that the report was published as recently as last Thursday, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that I should have come to this Dispatch Box with a fully formed set of proposals of the sort that the hon. Lady may wish for. I think that what her constituents and others want is a Government who look at the report very carefully, give great consideration to the complex issues involved and the report’s findings, and engage closely with Parliament, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even acknowledge the injustice done to thousands of innocent postmasters. This, too, is an incredible injustice. Millions of women born in the 1950s have been betrayed. Some 3.5 million women have been affected; one dies every 13 minutes, and we have been in this Chamber for an hour. Some 28,000 people have signed the letter from the WASPI campaign to the Leader of the House asking for an urgent debate and series of votes on compensation options, including that proposed by the all-party parliamentary group on this issue. This injustice cannot carry on any longer.

The Secretary of State has sought to avoid answering the question of when a decision will be made. “In due course” is not good enough, and neither is “without undue delay”. When will it happen? When will we get a debate on the issue, and a vote on proper compensation packages?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should not ask me questions at the Dispatch Box about when debates may or may not occur; those matters are typically handled by the usual channels, including those in his party and mine. It is quite extraordinary that he should try to get me to set out a timetable for debates. Many of these things will be a matter for Parliament, rather than the Government. However, he is right to raise Horizon, and I am very proud of the fact that this Government have acted at speed on that, and brought forward legislation to make sure that people get the moneys and reparations that they deserve.

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

At the beginning of the Secretary of State’s statement, he said something that is clearly wrong. He said that women clearly had not “lost out”. They have. Thousands in my constituency have lost out financially, through no fault of their own. They planned for their retirement on the basis of out-of-date information. They were then in effect penalised for taking on caring responsibilities—for providing the best kind of childcare for their grandchildren, and allowing their children to work and pay taxes. All that was disrupted by the collective failure of the state. As has been said, many have died before justice was delivered.

For years, those of us who sought justice for the WASPI women have met the same response, which was that we had to wait for the ombudsman’s report. We now have the report, so will the Secretary of State now comply, apologise to the women, and pay compensation to them, as recommended in the report?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman refers to my mention of there having been no direct loss; that was a conclusion drawn by the ombudsman in his report. As to how quickly we can proceed, I simply remind him that the report was published on Thursday, and it is Monday afternoon. These are complex matters, and it is right and proper that they be considered in detail very carefully, and that there be appropriate engagement with Parliament, exactly as there was with the ombudsman.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green, I have 4,760 WASPI women, who have been campaigning tirelessly for pension justice. Given that the report has now been published, will the Secretary of State commit to a timeline that will make sure that they are adequately and swiftly compensated for the harms that they have suffered?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is a question that in various forms has now been asked a dozen or more times. The answer will always be consistent: there is no desire to delay matters, and there will be no undue delays in our deliberations.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

There cannot be a Member of this House who has not met women affected by the issue or WASPI campaigners, and who has not been moved by their awful stories, and the pain that they have been through as a result of the maladministration by successive Governments. Anyone watching this lengthy, convoluted statement from the Secretary of State will be left confused about what will happen now. Could he tell us, in words of one syllable, when women who are victims of this maladministration can receive the compensation that they deserve?

[Mel Stride]

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is just another version of the same question about timing, and I have given a very clear answer on that.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I have heard many Ministers say from the Dispatch Box that they are working at pace, or that there will be no undue delay in dealing with scandals. This is a real opportunity for Parliament. The ombudsman laid this report before Parliament for a very good reason: he did not think that the Department for Work and Pensions would accept the recommendations on maladministration. If a Back Bencher tabled an amendment to a Government Bill that sought to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations, the Government would support it, wouldn’t they?

[Mel Stride]

It would be a little bit of a stretch to comment on, let alone support, an unknown amendment to an unknown Bill.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The WASPI campaign has asked me to emphasise its annoyance about how often Government Ministers, when talking about these issues, attempt to muddy the waters by referring back to the unsuccessful litigation to reverse the increase to the state pension age, or to claim direct discrimination. That was not litigation by the official WASPI campaign, and I am sure that its members were annoyed to hear a senior Labour Front Bencher doing the same thing on the radio last night. Will the Minister take this chance to assure the WASPI campaigners from the Dispatch Box that going forward, Government Ministers will not attempt to muddy the waters by referring back to now irrelevant litigation, and will instead focus on how to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. and learned Lady will know about legal matters. I do not think that I can accept that the litigation, particularly in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, is just not relevant, especially as it pertained to the matters under debate.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, this report has been five years in the offing. His Department has known that it was coming for an awful long time. It must also have known that it was possible that compensation would be recommended. I am sure that he runs his Department in a prudent fashion, and will have set aside contingency funding for that eventuality. Can he tell us how much?

[Mel Stride]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into forming conclusions prematurely about a complex report that needs a great deal of study and consideration. That is what we will give it.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

These 1950s women have been shockingly let down by Westminster. They have fought on this issue for years and years. Instead of the Secretary of State properly acknowledging the failings that the ombudsman highlighted and doing “the right thing”, as the ombudsman’s chief executive officer says, it feels as though he has come here today with precisely nothing to say. It feels as though he is trying to gaslight the WASPI women. It is a disgrace, and shame on the Labour party for going along with this charade. This terrible, protracted injustice has devastated the lives of so many women. It is time to give them the justice that they deserve. Give them their compensation now, before many more of them die waiting.

[Mel Stride]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken this entire situation extremely seriously. The House will have heard the remarks by the ombudsman’s CEO about the quality of my Department’s engagement with the ombudsman. I have also said that we provided more than 1,000 pages of evidence to the investigation. I have reassured the House that we will carefully consider the findings of the report, will not unduly delay our response, and will engage appropriately with Parliament, exactly as we have done with the ombudsman.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I must first declare my interest as a 1950s woman. The Secretary of State absolutely knows that real hardship was caused for some women in this age group in 2011 when the former Chancellor, George Osborne—backed by Conservative and Lib Dem Members—fast-forwarded the changes. As the ombudsman said, maladministration in the communication of the state pension age resulted in claimants losing opportunities to prepare. Women affected will be very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s statement, especially as the first stage of the ombudsman’s report in 2021 highlighted DWP failings. Can he please be more precise than saying “no undue delay”? In which month can we expect a proper Government response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

That is once again a question about the timing, and I have given a clear response on that. I have given an assurance to the House that there will be no undue delay in our approach to these matters. That is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to read the room? Let us remember that the ombudsman has said there has been maladministration. There is consensus across the Chamber that compensation should be paid. This is about women who paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, who were hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases, by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Can we imagine what would happen in this place if it was announced that private sector pensions were being put back by six years? Rightly, there would be outrage, and there should be outrage about what happened to the WASPI women.

This was an entitlement taken away from women, who had a reasonable expectation of retiring denied to them. The Government should have recognised the failings and should have compensated those 3.8 million women years ago. Now that we have the determination of maladministration, let us ensure that this is not another Horizon or contaminated blood story and that the Government come back at pace with firm proposals that the House can discuss after the Easter recess.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Can people focus on their questions, please? That would be really useful.

[Mel Stride]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am fully aware of the reports’ findings. As he will know, they raise many questions, which we need to look at carefully. We will not delay in so doing, but that is why I have come to assure the House that we will do exactly that and engage with Parliament in an appropriate way.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

This interim statement felt like a non-statement. It spoke about clarity but offered none at all to WASPI women or Members of the House. I repeat what many across the Chamber have said: on what day and in what month can we expect a full statement? WASPI women up and down the country expect that full statement.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raised the question to which by now I have probably responded two dozen times. The answer remains the same: we will look at these matters extremely carefully and diligently, which is what everybody who has an interest in them would expect us to do. The report was published as recently as Thursday, and it is now Monday. We will look at these issues very carefully indeed, and there will be no undue delay. We will ensure that we interact with Parliament in an appropriate fashion, as we did with the ombudsman.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State talks about time, but it is nearly a decade since the start of the WASPI campaign, which has included rallies, protests, court cases, thousands of meetings to lobby MPs, and 273,000 women dying. Those who remain can perhaps see some light at the end of the tunnel. I say “some light”, because the ombudsman should have gone further both on the impact that DWP malpractice has had and on the recommended compensation. However, it looks like that light is actually a train, with the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor in control. After all that those women—that includes my constituent, who was one of the test cases in the report and at times has treated the campaign like a full-time job—have gone through, is the Secretary of State really going to ask them to wait just a little longer and then break convention and ignore the ombudsman’s findings?

[Mel Stride]

Given that we have not yet responded to the findings of the ombudsman, for the reasons that I gave—this needs to be done in a diligent and careful manner—I am not sure that the hon. Member’s assertion holds water. The report was five years in the making. It covers highly complex matters, and many questions are raised as a consequence. We will look at those questions and those findings extremely carefully and come to the House without undue delay while engaging with the House in an appropriate way, which is what we did with the ombudsman.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The report’s central finding of fact is that women born in the 1950s could not make informed decisions about their finances and that their sense of “personal autonomy and financial control” was “diminished”, with tens of thousands plunged into poverty. The issue now is not whether those women faced injustice, because the report makes it clear that they did, that they are entitled to urgent compensation from the Government, and that Parliament must “identify a mechanism” for providing appropriate redress. Will the Secretary of State allay my concerns that he is not proposing to question the ombudsman’s findings and that, rather, after the Easter recess, he will return to set out appropriate mechanisms for redress that we can debate in the House?

[Mel Stride]

We are considering the findings, which need to be considered in their entirety in order to come to a view.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners in Glasgow whom I met on International Women’s Day at the Mary Barbour statue, including the great Kathy McDonald, a fantastic constituent. Surely, the Secretary of State accepts that it is unacceptable in 2024 that women continue to experience inequality in lifetime savings. Women would need to work an additional 19 years to have the same pension savings as men. Inequalities in lifetime savings, a gender pension gap and maladministration of state pension age changes: this is a triple whammy for 1950s-born women. When will they get justice and equal treatment?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman concludes by asking the same question that has been asked many times. There will be no undue delay. We will look at the issues, including some of the points that he has raised, in the round, looking at the entirety of the report and all its points and conclusions. He will know that we have taken many steps to help to increase the pension amounts received by the women involved, including the auto-enrolment reforms that we have brought forward. In the private pension space, the reforms have shown a dramatic improvement in the level of pension provision for women up and down the country.

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

The report is absolutely clear that the DWP’s systemic failure is that it did not even draw upon and learn from its own research into the failure of communication with those women. In addition, it did not investigate properly and respond to the complaints. That is straightforward in the report. Perhaps as a warning, I say to the Secretary of State that the anger out there will be not that he has not come up with a scheme immediately, but that he has not even acknowledged the failings of his own Department. That is why the report recommends that Parliament deal with this matter. Members of this House share the same feelings as the ombudsman and the WASPI women: we have no confidence in the Department for Work and Pensions to resolve its basic failure of decades ago.

[Mel Stride]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to one part of the report’s findings, where the ombudsman found maladministration but did not find injustice. The point that I have made to others in the House is that we need to look at this report properly. It is a report of 100 pages, to which my Department provided 1,000 pages of evidence, and which we received on Thursday. The only thing I can do responsibly is come to the House and make it clear that we will act without undue delay and interact with Parliament in an appropriate manner, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

Incredibly sadly, Margaret Meikle and Morag Syne are just two of a significant number of women in my constituency and elsewhere who have died while enduring years of prevarication and inaction by successive Governments in relation to the maladministration of their pensions. It is estimated that 40,000 women have died each year who may have been eligible for compensation. Nationally, 270,000 women have died without ever receiving an apology, justice or compensation. Will the Secretary of State commit to giving due consideration to compensating not only eligible women still living, but the relatives of those who have died while awaiting justice, when this comes back to the House?

[Mel Stride]

I listened to the hon. Gentleman extremely carefully, and I think we owe it to all those to whom he referred and those who may be in a similar situation to take this matter extremely seriously. We will look at it very carefully, and we will come to appropriate conclusions while ensuring that we interact with Parliament in an appropriate way, very much as we did in our interactions with the ombudsman.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am not sure why the Secretary of State has come to this House to tell us and WASPI women nothing apart from that he is considering the report. He keeps talking about its complexities, but one simple finding at its heart is that this Government and this Parliament must remedy the grave injustices against the thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, and up and down this country. Hon. Members from across this House have asked the Secretary of State quite reasonably for a timescale, but he refuses to commit and uses the words “undue delay.” Will he at least accept that every time a Minister stands up and says “undue delay” or “due process” they really mean that they have no intention of addressing the problem, and are saving face and kicking the can down the road?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

No, I do not accept that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The ombudsman’s report has made recommendations based on maladministration. The 1950s women were misled and not notified of their rights. That is a serious issue. Many people have contacted me; one told me that nearly 300,000 women have passed away already. Women continue to pass away each day without seeing a single penny. Let us not forget those who suffer physical and mental disabilities after a lifetime of work and childrearing. Many grandmothers have gone on to care for elderly parents or provide unpaid support so that their daughters and sons can return to work in support of the UK economy. Time is not on the side of the WASPI women. They need restitution, apologies and compensation. Does the Secretary of State agree with my constituent’s suggestion that the Government agree urgently to pay a reasonable lump sum, followed by an increase in their pension payments until the deficit is recouped, thereby making it easier to balance the public purse?

[Mel Stride]

I certainly accept that we need to proceed in a manner that does not delay matters, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. We owe it to the people to whom he referred to proceed without undue delay, by very carefully considering the report in its entirety, looking very closely at its findings. I am satisfied, as is the chief executive officer of the ombudsman, that the engagement between my Department and the ombudsman was full and complete. We will continue to proceed on that basis, working closely with Parliament in the same spirit that we worked with the ombudsman.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

To say the Secretary of State will have disappointed the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency and the many tens of thousands across the north-east would be an understatement. Frankly, the Minister’s response is shameful. I take issue with what he said about the complexity of the report. He said that it has only been five days since the 100-page report was published. I am not a speed reader, but I reckon that is 20 pages a day. The issues raised are not bolts out of the blue; the WASPI women have been actively campaigning for more than 10 years, highlighting the issues and the potential remedies. The response we have had will not wash with the country. The Secretary of State says that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, but 270,000 WASPI women have died waiting for justice. How many more will die before he finally comes along and implements those recommendations in full?

[Mel Stride]

The answer on timing is the same one that I have given consistently throughout this statement. I have been asked that probably three dozen times, and the answer remains the same. This is a complex report—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, that is not, as far as I am aware, a matter of dispute, even between the Government and the Opposition. We both accept that it is a complex report and that we need to look very carefully at the findings in order to come to conclusions. That is exactly what we will do.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Despite how the Minister might wish to spin it, the ombudsman’s report was absolutely damning, totally vindicating the WASPI women and their campaign. Too many people thought—indeed, fervently hoped—that they would give up and go away, but they picked the wrong fight with the wrong women. I congratulate Ann Greer and the Argyll & Isles WASPI women on never giving up the fight. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has a private Member’s Bill that would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for WASPI women. The vehicle is there, Minister. Will the Government now work with my hon. Friend and support his private Member’s Bill, so we can bring this matter to a conclusion as swiftly as possible?

[Mel Stride]

I am not familiar with all the details of the private Member’s Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Whether the Government decide to support a particular Bill is clearly a matter for the usual channels and Government business managers, not for me at the Dispatch Box at this time.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The WASPI website has a grim counter of affected women’s deaths and of money saved by the Treasury. The current figures are 273,000-plus women and well over £4 billion. They are rising by the minute. How far have the consequences of the Government’s 2022 disastrous mini-Budget affected their thinking on this matter? If the Secretary of State will not commit to full level 6 compensation, as the ombudsman recommends, what does he have to offer Linda Gregory, my constituency born in 1953? She “did the right thing,” as he said. She did her sums, got her forecasts and was repeatedly assured by the DWP and HMRC that she had contributions to retire at 60 in order to look after her ailing mum—before this surprise was sprung on her, which has so far cost her £40,000.

[Mel Stride]

With great respect to the hon. Lady, her question perfectly exemplifies why it is important to look at the detail of the report. She refers to the ombudsman recommending the full level 6 compensation, but it is actually level 4, the range between £1,000 and £2,950. I am afraid that that piece of information was simply inaccurate.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Sadly, we have had a reprise of known facts, not the resolution of a manifest wrong. Governments frequently have to address the faults and failings of their predecessors, of whatever political hue. That is called the responsibility of being in office and it is part of the privilege of governing. Equally, we have to remember that when there is an institutional failure that goes across political parties and Government institutions, we have independent bodies, such as an ombudsman, to address it. In those circumstances, will the Minister first of all accept that there has been a manifest wrong and injustice, and secondly, will he commit that he will not, under any circumstances, seek to undermine the decision of the ombudsman or the direction of travel he has embarked upon?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a very specific purpose for an ombudsman, as indeed there is for this ombudsman. What I think is unreasonable is to take the step in logic from that to saying that one should just simply, within a matter of hours, stand up and accept everything the ombudsman has put forward. What we have quite rightly said, and what I am saying at the Dispatch Box today, is that we will consider these matters, the findings, the circumstances and so on in very great detail, in order to come to the appropriate decision.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

WASPI women in my constituency simply cannot wait. In fact, as we have heard across the House, there is not a single constituency where WASPI women can wait. There is a simple reason for that: 40,000 of them are dying every year. Over a quarter of a million have died over the 10-year campaign. Not once have they had an apology or received any justice —and they have certainly received no compensation. When the PHSO report was published, both the UK Government and the Labour party deliberately failed to answer and fully guarantee that full justice and full compensation would be delivered to the WASPI women. The simple question, which the Secretary of State has failed to answer so far, is this: can he give us a timeframe by which he will deliver an apology, justice and compensation, and can it be before the next general election?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber, I think, since the beginning of the statement—I am sure he has; he heard the statement, hence he is asking a question—and he will know that the question he asked has been asked now probably a couple of dozen times. The answer is the same. [Interruption.] He chunters from a sedentary position, but the answer is just the same, which is that the responsible thing to do is to look at this highly complex matter. The report was published on Thursday. It is now Monday, early evening. It is not unreasonable to expect the Government—and indeed Parliament, because of the way the report has been laid before Parliament—to look at the detail of the report. As a Department, we gave around 1,000 pages of evidence that informed the report. There are some very important findings within it and to do it justice, we need to look at it carefully.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Some 6,900 WASPI women in my constituency, some of whom have lost out by as much as £60,000 and many of them in dire need of compensation, will have found little encouragement in the Minister’s statement. Is it this Government’s policy to dither, delay and deny justice until the 1950s-born women have died off?

[Mel Stride]

I can give a very short answer to that: absolutely not.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

The WASPI campaign has been conducted with great dignity. They have lobbied and informed all of us. Will the outgoing Government and the incoming Government show these women the respect they are due and commit to paying compensation? I am not even asking for a timetable—just a commitment to paying compensation. Before the Minister says, “I only got the report last Thursday,” I point out that if he had listened to the PHSO evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, he would have known that the writing was clearly on the wall and that compensation was going to be in the report.

[Mel Stride]

What I am not really clear about is why the hon. Gentleman is urging me and the Government to draw a premature conclusion on the basis of— [Interruption.] No, it would be premature. As he points out, the report arrived on Thursday. It is now Monday, very early evening. It is complicated, so it is absolutely right and proper that we look at it very carefully and in great detail. It is only right and proper that we do that for the people who are concerned with this matter. That is precisely what we will do. We will act without undue delay. We will make sure that we engage with this House in an appropriate fashion, as we did with the ombudsman himself.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The expression “Justice delayed is justice denied” has never seemed more appropriate, with so many thousands of WASPI women waiting for justice to be delivered and dying in the process. It is not just the five years waiting for the ombudsman’s report, but the years before that jumping through the hoops of the DWP complaints process and the independent case examiner. As well as delivering swift compensation, will the Secretary of State’s Government look at fixing the system that has delayed, for the best part of a decade, the delivery of justice for WASPI women?

[Mel Stride]

We will look closely at the report and we will, no doubt, draw many conclusions as a result of that process of careful examination of the findings and the points made within the report. My commitment to the House is that we will do that without undue delay and that we will also engage appropriately with Parliament as part of that approach.

Households Below Average Income: Statistics Release

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

The Department for Work and Pensions has today published its annual statistics on incomes and living standards covering 2022-23. This includes Households Below Average Income, which contains estimates of household incomes and a range of low-income indicators for 2022-23, 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 2010 Child Poverty Act.

In 2022-23 the war in Ukraine and global supply chain challenges led to unexpected and high rates of inflation, which averaged 10% over the year. This outstripped growth in wages and occupational pensions, as well as benefits, which were increased by 3.1% in 2022-23, in line with the rate of consumer price inflation in September 2021, as is standard practice. As a result, there was upward pressure on poverty.

In response to these pressures, the Government provided an unprecedented cost of living support package worth £96 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24, including £20 billion for two rounds of cost of living payments for over 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits, over 6 million people on eligible disability benefits and over 8 million pensioner households. This support helped to shield households from the impact of inflation. Analysis today shows that the Government cost of living support prevented 1.3 million people from falling into absolute poverty after housing costs in 2022-23. That includes 300,000 children, 600,000 working-age adults and 400,000 pensioners.

This Government have overseen significant falls in absolute poverty since 2009-10, underpinned by increases in labour market participation, with 4.1 million more people currently in employment, and sustained increases to the national living wage. In 2022-23, there were 1.1 million fewer people in absolute low income after housing costs compared to 2009-10, with the rate falling by 3 percentage points. This includes 100,000 fewer children, 700,000 fewer working age adults and 200,000 fewer pensioners.

In the context of global energy price rises, the war in Ukraine and surge in inflation, between 2021-22 and 2022-23 median incomes fell slightly, and there were increases in the number of children in absolute poverty after housing costs and, to a lesser extent, for working-age adults. Absolute poverty rates for pensioners after housing costs remained stable.

Since the period covered by these statistics, the economy has turned a corner. Inflation has more than halved and is forecast to fall below 2% in 2024-25. Wages are rising in real terms. Together with our cuts in national insurance, this means more money in people’s pockets.

As inflation comes down to target, we are continuing to provide extra support to those who need it most, with the extension of the household support fund in England for a further six months to help vulnerable families with the cost of essentials. Following the Government’s uprating of benefits and pensions by 10.1% in 2023-24, from April benefits will also increase by 6.7%, while the basic and new state pensions and the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit will be uprated by 8.5% in line with average weekly earnings. This delivers on our manifesto commitment to honour the triple lock for state pensions.

To further support those on low incomes, local housing allowance rates will rise to the 30th percentile of local market rents in April 2024. This will benefit 1.6 million low-income households by around £800 a year on average in 2024-25. In addition, from April, we are further supporting the lowest paid with a 9.8% rise in the national living wage, following the largest ever cash increase last year, which means it will increase to £11.44 per hour.

[HCWS371]

Ombudsman's Report on State Pension Age Changes

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has today published his final report on his investigation into state pension age changes communication. The timing and date of publication were entirely of the ombudsman’s choosing, which the Government play no part in. We will consider the ombudsman’s report and respond in due course, having co-operated fully throughout this investigation. Ministers intend to come before the House in due course.

The Government have always been committed to supporting all pensioners in a sustainable way that gives them a dignified retirement whilst also being fair to them and taxpayers. The state pension is the foundation of income in retirement and will remain so as we deliver a further 8.5% rise in April to 12 million pensioners on the basic and new state pensions. This sees the full rate of the new state pension rise by £900 a year.

[HCWS372]

Oral Answers to Questions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to support financially people unable to work due to serious medical conditions.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

My Department does a great deal to support the long-term sick and disabled, including through universal credit and its health element, and through the personal independence payment, which is a contribution to the additional costs of sickness and disability.

[Duncan Baker]

My constituent Jenifer Picton is currently undergoing extensive treatment for cancer and is consequently unable to work. I wish Ms Picton all the very best with her treatment. She has come to my office, which has helped with universal credit, PIP and the new-style employment and support allowance. She has now managed to get PIP, but given that she is seriously ill, why should she have to come to my office for help? Why do we make it so arduous and difficult for people who need treatment to get help?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the typical assiduity with which he takes up his constituency case. May I send my best wishes, and I am sure those of the whole House, to Ms Picton? I am happy to meet him to discuss in more detail the circumstances that he has described.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Data in responses to my written questions on PIP appeals shows that more than 50,000 ill or disabled people had their appeals upheld at tribunal without the need for new evidence. Given that the UK Government will be examined today by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities following its 2016 special inquiry that found that the threshold had been met for grave and systematic violations, is it not time to replace the flawed and outdated PIP system with a framework that is fit for purpose?

[Mel Stride]

Of course, we always keep all benefits under review at the Department, including PIP and the assessment processes. As the hon. Lady points out, there is rightly an appeals process for those who are not happy with the conclusions of those assessments. We keep those under review, and I can reassure her that they represent a relatively small proportion of the total number of applications.

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

2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of regional variations in levels of employment and inactivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to help people into work.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Jobcentre Plus provides a variety of different support to encourage and support people into work, including training and one-to-one, face-to-face counselling by work coaches.

[Gordon Henderson]

In February, there were 615 claimants aged 18 to 24 out of work in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that schools and businesses work together to ensure that young people have the qualifications and skills they need to progress into work once they finish full-time education?

[Mel Stride]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is exactly why we have youth hubs providing advice and support on not just getting into work but other important matters to young people, such as housing, their health and debt management.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I was talking to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which represents the blind and partially sighted. It told me of an employee who said,

“I am newly employed and I am unable to fulfil my role. It has been extremely stressful and frustrating”,

and this is because of Access to Work. Does the Minister agree that without having Access to Work in place within the first four weeks of someone entering work, it is incredibly difficult for them to maintain that position?

[Mel Stride]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady raises Access to Work, because it is extremely effective. The grant can be there year in, year out and be up to a maximum of £66,000. Along with other approaches, it has very much led to our meeting our employment goal for disabled people in half the time that we set in 2017—over a million more disabled people were in work by 2022.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

What are the Government doing to use apprenticeships to help young people engage with the labour market, to tackle levels of economic inactivity and to give them the opportunities they need to get the careers that they want?

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend raises economic inactivity, which is lower in our country than in the United States, France and Italy. It is below the average of the OECD, the G7 and the European Union. Apprenticeships play a very important part in producing those good figures, though there is of course always more to be done, not least through our approach of engaging extremely closely with employers, both at the national level and through our jobcentres.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

As somebody who has fought really hard over the last four years to overcome the difficulties presented by long covid, I am sure that the Secretary of State will appreciate that a significant number of the people not in work because of health conditions will have some form of post-viral fatigue linked to long covid. What assessment has he made of the effect of long covid on the workforce, and what is he doing to help people who have it get back to work?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman specifically raises long covid, which is one of many health pressures in our society and post covid in many other countries that were also affected by the virus. We have a number of approaches, including universal support, which places people in employment and gives them critical support for up to 12 months. We also have WorkWell, and we are looking at occupational health and what tax incentives we might put in place to encourage employers to do more on that front. We are doing a great deal.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Arguably, the biggest barrier to growth in the UK and to turning around the Prime Minister’s recession is the supply of labour. Following the Chancellor’s “Back to work Budget” in the autumn and all the measures unveiled since then, some of which the Secretary of State has just reeled off, did the Office for Budget Responsibility upgrade or downgrade its forecast on employment growth in the Budget 12 days ago?

[Mel Stride]

One of the most important figures in the spring Budget economic and fiscal outlook was a recognition by the OBR that there will be a net 200,000 more people in employment as a consequence of that fiscal event and the one that preceded it in the autumn. What the hon. Lady cannot get away from is that economic inactivity in our country is at a lower level than in every year under the last Labour Government.

[Alison McGovern]

What the Secretary of State cannot get away from is the fact that, as has already been said, our employment rate has not returned to the post-pandemic level. He cannot answer the question because the truth is that the OBR downgraded its forecast: the unemployment forecast is worse. The reason for that is a truth that the British people have known for a long time now: these Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench have no idea, no plan for jobs, no plan for growth. They are done; it is time for a general election.

[Mel Stride]

I have already referred to the 200,000 additional jobs that the OBR suggests in its forecast, but the hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that we have record levels of payroll employment in our country, and near record low unemployment. Let us contrast that with Labour’s record: it always leaves unemployment higher than when it comes into office. Economic inactivity was higher than it is now in each year of the previous Labour Government, and we had more people in absolute poverty after housing costs under Labour as a direct consequence.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

4. What his planned timetable is for the roll-out of welfare reforms.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

We are bringing forward a number of important reforms to our welfare system at pace. Phase 1 of our universal support has already been activated, and phase 2 will be later this year. Next month we will announce 15 WorkWell areas—about a third of England—that have been successfully selected, and will be rolled out live this autumn.

[Nigel Mills]

I thank the Secretary of State for listing all those reforms. The data is clear that after 13 weeks out of work, the chances of someone finding work starts to fall off rapidly. Therefore, there is a need for more intensive and tailored support. Could he update the House on the additional jobcentre support roll-out, and when my constituents might get access to those benefits?

[Mel Stride]

We are keen to do that. AJS, to which my hon. Friend refers, has been rolled out in parts of the country at six weeks, but shortly will be extended and strengthened for two weeks at the 13-week stage of the unemployment journey. That is part of the more intensive conditions that we apply to ensure that we help—and in many circumstances, require—people to go back into work.

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

Some of the poorest people I know in my constituency work for themselves. Hill farmers have seen a 41% drop in their income over the last four years. The welfare system does not work for them, because they are paid less than the minimum wage. Access to universal credit is less for them, because of the minimum income floor. Will the Secretary of State urgently look at that, so that small business owners—especially hill farmers in my constituency —are not made even poorer because of the Government’s rules?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as universal credit for the self-employed has to recognise the fact that sometimes there are inconsistent levels of income month to month. That is why we have a minimum income floor and the arrangements around that. I know he has a rural, agricultural constituency; I recognise some of those issues, and I am looking closely at them.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's support for vulnerable people who claim social security benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)]

14. What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of changes in the cost of living on levels of food bank use.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Food banks are independent organisations, with DWP having no direct role in their operation. We do, however, monitor the use of food banks through the family resources survey, and the next instalment of that will be later this month.

[Mr Sharma]

Nearly 50,000 people needed help from Ealing Foodbank last year. Some 38% of them were children under 16. It is amazing that the food bank and its volunteers are there to help, but it is a national shame that it is needed. What are the Government’s plans to reduce dependence on food banks?

[Mel Stride]

This is the Government who have overseen a 400,000 reduction in the number of children in absolute poverty since 2010. Despite the chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench, unfortunately the figures were far worse under the last Labour Government than they may be at the moment. The hon. Gentleman asks directly what we are doing. We are again putting up the national living wage by substantially more than inflation this April. The Chancellor has already brought in national insurance cuts that will be worth £900 to the average earner. Benefits themselves are going up by 6.7% next month. We have also changed the arrangements for local housing allowance, which means that 1.6 million people, many of whom are on very low incomes, will be better off by an average of £800 a year.

[Gen Kitchen]

While on the campaign trail, I met the Daylight Centre and SERVE Rushden. Both have seen their service users increase in number, even with the extension of the household support fund, which they both welcome. What can the Secretary of State do to expand the eligibility of the fund, improve uptake and increase the value of the healthy start payment?

[Mel Stride]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her place? In answer to her question, I will simply point out that there was much speculation before the spring Budget about whether the housing support fund was going to be extended. In my opinion, the Chancellor took exactly the right approach, and the fund has now been extended for a further six months.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Mel Stride]

The most important thing is that this Government recognise that the best way out of poverty, and the best way to address the circumstances that the hon. Lady describes, is through work. That is why the Chancellor reduced taxation, making work pay ever more, and why the national living wage is to be increased by close to 10% this April, following a similar increase around this time last year. Benefits are going up by 6.7% and increased by 10.1% this time last year. I have already mentioned local housing allowance, and of course we have now had eight consecutive months of real wage growth as inflation has fallen.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to increase the support offered by Jobcentres in Darlington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

11. What steps he is taking through the benefits system to tackle poverty in rural areas.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

We are bearing down on poverty, not least by incentivising work within the benefit system. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have reduced the universal credit taper, for example, which has led to a record level of payroll employment and near record low unemployment.

[Hywel Williams]

I commissioned a poverty report for the Arfon constituency from the highly respected Bevan Foundation—copies are available online in Welsh and English. One finding is that, of the people receiving both universal credit and housing benefit in Arfon, 35% are paying the bedroom tax, compared with 21% across Wales. This is cushioned to some extent by the Gwynedd local authority’s discretionary help, but will the Minister review the differential negative effects of the bedroom tax between communities, particularly those with a diminished housing stock because of, for example, high levels of holiday homes?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to that report, which I will look at with interest. Of course, there is no such thing as a bedroom tax, as it is not a tax at all; it is a spare room subsidy. It is there for very good reason: to free up additional space for those who need it. On the housing front, as I said earlier, local housing allowance has been improved such that 1.6 million people on low incomes in the private rented sector will be, on average, £800 a year better off come April.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

One of the best ways to tackle poverty in rural areas such as Ynys Môn is through jobs fairs. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking Alwen Gardiner and my brilliant Ynys Môn DWP team for organising an excellent tourism and hospitality jobs fair, which was attended by over 150 jobseekers in Llangefni and companies such as Tredici Butchers & Deli in Beaumaris, and the Breeze Hill in Benllech? Diolch yn fawr.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to her jobs fair. She is a local dynamo in standing up for her constituents. When I arrived there recently thinking I was very special to support yet another jobs fair—a disability jobs fair—I was quickly reminded of the fact that I was the 32nd Minister to have been to her constituency in, I think, the past 12 months.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle non-payment of housing benefit to district councils when the beneficiary is not a registered social landlord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce the number of children in poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

We are reducing child poverty through the use of a large number of measures, not least ensuring that work pays, hence our increase in the national living wage in April and the reduction in the national insurance tax that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

A total of 100,000 children will be kept clear of poverty this year thanks to the Scottish Government’s policies—primarily the Scottish child payment. Surely the Secretary of State must now look to rolling out some of our policies in other parts of the UK and, at the very least, ditch the two-child limit, which deliberately forces children into poverty.

[Mel Stride]

The limit to which the hon. Gentleman refers is there for a very good reason, which is that people in those circumstances should face the same basic decisions as those not on benefits. That is an important matter of fairness across those who receive benefits as well as the many who are paying tax. As for the number of children in poverty, that has fallen by 400,000 since 2010.

[Gavin Newlands]

Many of those people are in work, Secretary of State. Some £14 million has been paid to more than 10,000 children’s families in Renfrewshire thanks to the widely praised Scottish child payment. Praise has come from the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland, which says that the Scottish Government are making employment for parents central to their child poverty strategy, but it says that devolved employment support programmes are

“held back by responsibility being split across governments and a reserved Jobcentre system which is more often focused on compliance than helping people reach their full potential.”

It recommends the full devolution of employment support to tackle child poverty. Will the Secretary of State listen to the experts?

[Mel Stride]

I am always very interested in listening to the hon. Gentleman and any ideas that he has about how we should improve our welfare system, but I point to the fact that this country has seen a considerable drop in absolute child poverty, after housing costs, of 400,000 since 2010.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

What correlation does the Secretary of State see between children in poverty and workless families? Given that there is no age restriction on most apprenticeships, and today’s announcement that there will be 20,000 more apprenticeships and that the apprenticeship levy can be spent on greater numbers of contractors and sub-contractors, what opportunities does he see for his Department to highlight those opportunities for people who are of working age and who may have children in poverty?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend refers to workless households. He is absolutely right about the correlation: a child is five time more likely to be in poverty if they are growing up in a workless household. He was right to draw attention to the announcement that has been made today about even greater investment in apprenticeships, and also the change in the way that the apprenticeship levy works so that supply chains can benefit to a greater degree.

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

May I join the House in saying happy birthday to the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)? It should be a national holiday as far as I am concerned—perhaps that is an idea for a private Member’s Bill, or something similar.

I am pleased that, since the last questions, we have published our review into autism employment, and I place on record my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) who did such excellent work in bringing that useful report forward.

Looking forward from April, we will see benefits generally rising by 6.7%, the state pension by 8.5%, the national living wage by around 10%, and the next tranche of the household support fund being brought forward. As I have already set out, our plan is working. It means more employment, historically low unemployment and an economic inactivity rate below countries such as the United States, France and Italy.

[Sir David Davis]

The economic inactivity rate is now very high, with 2.8 million people citing long-term sickness as a reason. Some 17 million days of work are lost, at a cost of £13 billion to the economy. Has the Secretary of State seen the Policy Exchange report published today, with policy proposals backed by two of his predecessors, David Blunkett and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)? What steps are the Government taking to improve the provision of workplace health services through occupational health pathways and vocational rehabilitation, and will he consider the 15 proposals in the Policy Exchange report?

[Mel Stride]

I will of course look closely at the report that my right hon. Friend refers to; indeed, I reached out to him recently to invite him to the Department to discuss that and other matters. With regard to long-term sickness and disability, we are working on an array of interventions, including occupational health support within businesses; WorkWell, bringing together medical interventions with work coaches; universal support to help people into work, and to stay in work with that support; and fundamental reform of the work capability assessment, such that the OBR says that 371,000 fewer people will go on to those benefits going forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

In the Budget, the Chancellor said that he wants to end national insurance contributions because the

“double taxation of work is unfair.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 851.]

People’s NICs records help to determine their entitlement to the state pension, so if national insurance is scrapped how will they know what pension they will get?

[Mel Stride]

I am not surprised that the hon. Lady brings that up, because I am well aware of the position that her party has taken on the announcements that we have made. She will be clear in her own mind that the Chancellor has not guaranteed that we will reduce at one stroke national insurance contributions; it is an aspiration that has been spoken about as occurring over a number of years, if not Parliaments, so the problems that she is conjuring up to frighten pensioners are nothing short of political scaremongering.

[Liz Kendall]

The Secretary of State can bluster and deny all he likes, but the Prime Minister told The Sunday Times:

“We want to end this double taxation on work”.

It is there in black and white, so let me try again. How will people’s pension entitlement be determined if NICs are scrapped, and if the Government are going to merge NICs with income tax what will that mean for pensioners’ tax bills? Is the truth not that their unfunded £46 billion plan to scrap NICs is yet more chaos from the Conservatives, and Britain’s pensioners deserve so much better?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady quoted from The Sunday Times, and I scribbled it down:

“We want to end this double taxation”.

Of course we do, but that is not the same as a near-term pledge; it is a longer-term aspiration—[Interruption.] We have been quite upfront, quite unlike—[Interruption.] If she would care to hear me out, it is quite unlike the £28 billion firm commitment that her party made, and subsequently U-turned on, which was nothing short of fiscally reckless, and would have led to increases in interest rates, inflation, unemployment, and so on.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T2. I extend my gratitude to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work for recently holding a menopause roundtable that was particularly focused on employment in tourism and hospitality, and to Gatwick airport for hosting it. What steps will the menopause employment champion take next?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Resolution Foundation highlights that scrapping the two-child limit would be one of the most efficient ways to drive down child poverty rates, and would lift 490,000 children out of poverty overnight. Surely one child growing up in poverty is one child too many. The Secretary of State should reverse course on this, and the Labour party should also commit to scrapping the two-child limit. Does the Secretary of State agree that no child should grow up in poverty, and will he take action to ensure that that stops now?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises the same point as her colleague, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), about the two-child limit. I will not detain the House by repeating exactly the same answer, other than to agree passionately with her that one child in poverty is one too many, and to say that, although we have further to go, it is important to recognise that we have reduced the number of children in absolute poverty, after housing costs, by 400,000 since 2010.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)]

T3. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I thank the Minister for recognising Sign Language Week in the Chamber. It is so important for disability inclusion in the workplace. Will she recommend that hon. Members from across the House meet representatives of the British Deaf Association, who are now welcoming people in Dining Room A at an event I am co-sponsoring?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T5. As my right hon. Friend will know, fast diagnosis and treatment are key to getting people back into work. What representations has he made to his departmental and Cabinet colleagues to ensure that that is the case?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for her question—I know that she cares deeply about the issue that she has raised. We work closely with other Departments. For example, we work with the Department of Health and Social Care on NHS talking therapies, of which we have announced 400,000 more over the next five years, as well as on WorkWell, which I have mentioned, and on fit note reform. With the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we are working closely on housing—I have spoken about the local housing allowance changes coming through—and with the Department for Education we are working on SWAPs, and on training and apprenticeships.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Schools, general practitioners, social services, charities and housing associations can all refer their clients to a food bank in an emergency, yet this Government, who are responsible for benefit sanctions, have ordered DWP staff to stop referring claimants to food banks. How can Ministers justify this decision to the families of the 4,027 children living in poverty in my east Durham constituency?

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T6. A couple in my constituency recently received an apologetic letter from the Department for Work and Pensions that set out a catalogue of mistakes that it had made. Those mistakes almost led to their losing their home, which caused them enormous stress. My constituents are now waiting for a decision on the compensation that they may receive. Will my right hon. Friend look into the case, and ensure that a decision is taken as quickly as possible, to save my constituents any further stress?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I obviously cannot comment on an individual case. However, I am very happy to look closely into the matter he has raised, and either I or a relevant Minister will be happy to meet him.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

The number of the long-term sick has risen from 2.1 million pre-pandemic to 2.8 million today. This huge increase started in spring 2021, at the same time as the roll-out of the experimental, emergency-use vaccines—or does the Secretary of State have an alternative explanation for the unprecedented rise in long-term sickness in the UK since spring 2021?

[Mel Stride]

Among the major drivers of the increase to which the hon. Gentleman refers are mental health issues and musculoskeletal issues. I am not entirely sure that he is accurate when he says that the upward trajectory in the number occurred just as vaccination occurred—I think it predated that moment—and I certainly do not subscribe to the view that vaccination is in any way unsafe.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

T7. For many years, the Department published statistics giving a breakdown of welfare claims by nationality. Although the Department still has the data, it no longer publishes the statistics. Will the Minister look again at that, and start publishing those important statistics once again?

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The last Labour Government lifted 1 million children out of poverty. After 14 years of Tory Government, we have 1 million children in destitution. What has gone wrong?

[Mel Stride]

I have to take issue with the hon. Gentleman. He needs to look more closely at his party’s record in government. Fact No. 1 is that the Labour party always leaves office with higher unemployment. Fact No. 2 is that economic inactivity in our country is lower than in any year in his party’s time in office. Fact No. 3 is that absolute poverty has declined in our country since his party was in office. Fact No. 4 is that there were more children in workless households on his watch than there are on ours. Perhaps most tellingly of all, during his party’s time in office, over 1 million people languished on long-term benefits for almost a decade. That is a disgraceful record.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T9. One of the most challenging groups of people to get back into the workforce is those in their 50s and 60s whose jobs disappeared during covid. They have possibly fallen back on their personal pensions, although with inflation, that money is being eaten away. What actions is my hon. Friend taking to get those people back into work, and to encourage them into jobs that are valuable and improve our productivity?

Budget Resolutions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady commenced her remarks by saying much about where Labour is on tax. She criticised the aspiration that the Government rightly have to abolish national insurance at some point in the future. She rather disingenuously repositioned that as a firm commitment, rather than an aspiration, but let us set that to one side.

The right hon. Lady knows all about firm commitments, because we had a firm commitment from her to £28 billion- worth of spending every year over the forecast period. That did not survive contact with reality. Indeed, she has little to say that is original. When she writes about economics, she has to cut and paste from Wikipedia. When she trumpeted her ruinous £28 billion spending plan, she ultimately had to U-turn and run for the hills. For this shadow Chancellor, when it is not cut and paste, it is cut and run. [Interruption.] I thought the right hon. Lady would like that.

The right hon. Lady has also accepted our tax measures as set out in yesterday’s Budget, including the abolition of non-dom status and the windfall tax on oil and gas. She has hypothecated the money raised from those two measures many times over—for the NHS, dentistry, breakfast clubs and so on. Now that she has accepted all the tax measures in the Budget, I invite her to come back to the Dispatch Box; I will give way to her if she will let us know whether she will U-turn again on her spending commitments on the NHS and dentistry, or whether she will put up taxes and borrowing. I would be very happy to hear from her—all right, perhaps not.

[Rushanara Ali]

When the Secretary of State was Chair of the Treasury Committee, he was keen on Office for Budget Responsibility assessments and forecasts. Indeed, he argued for them, but his then Prime Minister and Chancellor failed to listen to him and crashed the economy. He and his Government want to pursue the aspiration, as he now calls it, of scrapping national insurance contributions altogether, which would cost £48 billion a year. Will he commit to seeking an OBR forecast and assessment of that, and showing how the Government would pay for that?

[Mel Stride]

Let me talk about the general point that the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) made about the tax burden. It is as if history has been erased from her mind. The fact is that the covid pandemic shrank the economy overnight by 10%, and this Government stepped in, supported jobs, and saved 10 million jobs as a result of the intervention that we came forward with. It is as if it has been erased from her memory that a war is going on between Russia and Ukraine, and that that has led to an increase in energy prices and inflation. This Government have stepped in to support the most vulnerable in society, including families, pensioners, and the disabled up and down this country. The Government provided £400 billion of support across that period, and in all candour, I do not believe that there was a single occasion on which she opposed any of our interventions. She was up for spending the money to support people, but not up for recognising that it has to be repaid. That is why the tax burden is indeed increasing.

To go back to the point about the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), the OBR makes it clear that the measures taken yesterday in the Budget mean that the tax burden will be lower than was forecast in the autumn, as a result of the management of the economy and the reduction in taxes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought forward.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State might not be surprised that Labour Members take it a little unkindly when he suggests that we are forgetting the past, when he seems to have forgotten the immediate past, and the state that the former Prime Minister left the British economy in just a year ago. How much extra debt interest will the Government pay as a result of the Chancellor’s unfunded commitment to abolish national insurance contributions, at a cost of £46 billion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

It is an entirely disingenuous statement to say that there is any such unfunded commitment. The only unfunded commitment in recent times is the £28 billion that the Labour party came forward with; the Leader of the Opposition called it something along the lines of “absolutely critical”, only for the shadow Chancellor to U-turn on it not long afterwards.

Let me turn to the comments that the right hon. Member for Leeds West made about pensioners. She neglects to point out that we have stood by the triple lock. Since 2010, there have been 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty after housing costs. That is a result of this Government making the protection of our pensioners a key priority over many years. Among many things that have been erased from her memory, she has forgotten that on her watch, when Gordon Brown was Chancellor, there was the 75p increase in pensions.

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

This morning the Chancellor appeared to suggest that income tax and national insurance contributions will be merged as part of his commitment yesterday. As national insurance is not currently levied on some forms of income, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House how much extra tax pensioners will pay as a result of the Chancellor’s policy decisions?

[Mel Stride]

There is no immediate Government approach to merging income tax and national insurance, and I rather put that in the category of those comments about the apparent commitment of £46 billion, although I think the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow nudged it up in a typical Labour way to £48 billion a moment ago.

Let me turn to the remarks that the right hon. Member for Leeds West made about growth. As she knows, we have had a technical recession of two quarters of negative growth—one of which was the princely amount of 0.1%—and most of the purchasing managers index data makes it clear that the economy is on a very different path. Indeed, to return to the comments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, the OBR makes it clear that over the period of the forecast, there will be reasonable and decent growth—greater than that of France, Italy and Germany. That is on the back of exactly the kind of growth record that this Government have had since 2010.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

On growth, it was the former Prime Minister, when seeking election as leader of her party, who characterised the growth record since 2010 as lamentable. She was surely absolutely right about that particular point.

[Mel Stride]

My point is that the externalities that I referred to, such as covid and the war between Ukraine and Russia, have impacted economies around the world. Relative to other economies, and looking at the OBR’s forecast over the next five years, we will have a growth record that is up there and better than many of our major competitors, including countries such as Germany.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

To clarify a point that perhaps I have misunderstood, what is the growth per capita record for the last seven quarters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My point clearly remains that growth is a function of both the size of the population and the level of productivity. As a consequence of all the elements that feed into growth, the OBR has confirmed that we will be growing a little faster at certain times than was anticipated at the time of the autumn statement, and our growth will compare favourably with countries such as Germany.

This debate is meant to be about making work pay, and the right hon. Member for Leeds West had very little —in fact, next to nothing—to say about that. [Interruption.] As she says from a sedentary position, she mentioned the national living wage—something the Conservative party is proud that it brought into being.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

indicated dissent.

[Mel Stride]

You are thinking of the national minimum wage. The national living wage was a Conservative decision —[Interruption.] You did, but it is a pleasure to correct you on this occasion—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. This is the problem with conversations across the Dispatch Box. It is very difficult for the Hansard writers to follow if we veer off into private conversations. It should all come through the Chair.

[Mel Stride]

I am sorry Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry for Hansard, but it was quite enjoyable. This debate is about making work pay, and the right hon. Member for Leeds West had precious little to say about that. I wonder why that might be. Might it be because unemployment has always gone up under Labour Governments? That is a simple fact for her to think about. It rose by 1 million under the last Labour Government. Youth unemployment rose by 45% under the last Labour Government, and the number of households in which no one had ever worked doubled during the last Labour Government. I find it particularly striking that under Labour 1.4 million people spent almost a decade on out-of-work benefits. Labour should be ashamed of that record of its time in office.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentions making work pay, but Unison has pointed out that a number of social care workers are being disadvantaged because HMRC mileage rates have not changed since 2010. Does the Treasury not believe that the cost of running a motor vehicle has changed in the last 14 years?

[Mel Stride]

One of the principal costs of running a motor vehicle is the fuel in the tank. Because of our stewardship of the economy, the Chancellor was able to announce yesterday that we are freezing fuel duty for the 14th year in succession, as well as beer duty, to help those supporting our vital pubs.

Yesterday’s Budget sets the course for a brighter future for our country. It is a Budget for long-term growth, with more investment, more jobs and an economy that is turning the corner. That has allowed us to cut taxes because this Government believe in rewarding aspiration and hard work.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I remind him that the tax burden has gone up by £27 billion in the last year, and it will go up by £19 billion after the election because of decisions his party made. People who earn less than £19,000 will be worse off because of the Budget. Two decades of lost pay growth—that is the record of his Government over the last 14 years.

[Mel Stride]

I thought I had already covered this point, but the reality is that the tax burden has had to go up to pay for all the support we provided around covid, and because of the inflationary pressures created by a war on European soil. The hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that through this fiscal event, and the previous one, 27 million hard-working people, employed in businesses up and down the country, will be better off to the extent of £900 per year. Some 2 million self-employed people will be £650 per year better off. She talks about those earning less than £19,000, but those many millions of people who earn above £19,000 will have a lower tax burden than before, when we take into account the interplay of the freezing of thresholds and the cuts in national insurance.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It has been widely reported that the taxpayer is having to pick up the tab for £15,000 of legal costs and damages incurred because of the actions of the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who is rapidly becoming known as the hon. Member for “chipping in”. Will the Minister confirm that the figure of £15,000 is correct? Will he say whether he thinks it is morally right that the taxpayer should be picking up the bill for the outrageous lack of judgment and behaviour of one of his colleagues?

[Mel Stride]

What I think will be absolutely outrageous is the taxpayer having to pick up the bill for a future Labour Government. I have just explained the record of the hon. Gentleman’s party in government.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a good case for yesterday’s announcements in the Budget. He has dealt very thoroughly with Labour’s record when in office, but will he turn his attention to its present proposals? If Labour will not reverse the tax on non-doms or the cuts to national insurance, does that not leave a whopping £6.5 billion in uncosted expenditure pledges?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the beginning of my speech, I invited the shadow Chancellor to explain to the House what she will do, given that the non-dom status will be abolished and windfall taxes on oil and gas will come forward. Will she once again U-turn and run for the hills, as she did with the £28 billion, or will she raise taxes or borrowing? Answer came there none.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

When the Minister has time, he might want to read the shadow Chancellor’s speech in Hansard and help his colleagues who will be speaking later.

May I take him back to the subject of ordinary people? As a result of last year’s mini-Budget, people who remortgage are now paying £240 more—real money for them—than they were previously. If he does not accept that there is a £46 billion hole as a result of yesterday’s announcement, will he tell us what he thinks the figure is? Can he assure people who are remortgaging this year that they will not be further impacted by yesterday’s announcement and that there will not be a further scare on those markets?

[Mel Stride]

I can reassure all mortgage holders up and down the country that this Government are absolutely determined to see inflation return to its target. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook, published yesterday, makes it clear that we will meet the 2% target one year earlier than it forecast in the autumn. The significance of that for interest rates is obvious: interest rates will come down faster if inflation recedes quicker, and that is exactly what has happened.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Mel Stride]

I have been very generous with my time, but how can I say no? I must then make some progress.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister is a decent man. The Government make much of getting value for money, but they have little to say about the handing over of Teesside’s greatest land asset to two private developers, who have since banked tens of millions of pounds in profits, leaving crumbs for the public. That is after the investment of £500 million of taxpayers’ money and no private investment. Is the Minister content with that, or does he believe, as his own Government’s inquiry into the Tees Mayor’s business dealings recommended, that the deal should be renegotiated?

[Mel Stride]

I will not get into the weeds of the issue that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to draw me into, other than to say that he made at least one comment that I agree with: I am indeed a decent man. I thank him very much for that.

Inflation is falling faster than expected. People’s wages are rising in real terms, and have done for the last seven months. Under this Government, our labour market has been strong and resilient, delivering opportunities despite the headwinds. We have put incentives at the heart of our welfare. We have grown faster than Germany, France or Italy. According to the OBR, we will continue to do so over the next five years. We are attracting the business investment that is key to growth, delivering high- quality jobs across the country—from Nissan to Google to AstraZeneca, which announced £650 million of investment only yesterday.

No matter how much the Labour party seeks to talk down Britain, the investment flowing into our economy is a huge vote of confidence in our country. It shows that our plan is working. By contrast, as has been laid all too bare this afternoon, the Labour party has no plan or credible record. I have already gone through the tale of woe about the level of unemployment that Labour has left us in the past. Those poor young people had a 45% increase in youth employment on the watch of the shadow Chancellor’s party, and over 1 million people were left on out-of-work benefits for almost a decade.

On the Government Benches, we believe that work, not welfare is key to improving living standards. That is why we are incentivising and rewarding work in this Budget. Making work pay and ensuring families are better off means tackling the global inflation that I have referred to, on which we are making significant progress. As inflation decreases, we recognise that there are still some people who need extra help. I was pleased to see the extension of the household support fund for a further six months from April, which was also pushed for by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms).

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The Minister is right that I warmly welcome that extension. Is there not a strong case for making the household support fund permanent, not just extending it for another six months?

[Mel Stride]

Six months is a meaningful period of time. Inflation is coming down. As the OBR says in its report, inflation is expected to hit target within the next few months, which will make a huge difference. It highlights some uncertainties around that, but £500 million of investment over six months, including Barnett consequentials, is a major move forward to support the most vulnerable.

The sustainable way to change lives is through work, and the evidence could not be clearer. It is good for the economy, communities and the individuals concerned. I want everyone who can work to have the opportunity to do so. One of the great labour market challenges is economic inactivity, and I want to put that into context. In the UK, inactivity has come down since its pandemic peak and remains lower than the average across the G7, the OECD and the European Union. Our progress has seen a significant fall in the number of people who are inactive because of caring responsibilities. We have the second lowest youth inactivity rate in the G7, and thousands of over-50s are returning to work.

However, the rise in the number of people out of work due to ill health and disability is stifling potential—potential that I am determined to realise. That is why, as we cut taxes for working people, our multibillion-pound back to work plan is providing substantial support to help the long-term sick return to work and keep people in the workforce. That includes doubling the number of placements on universal support, expanding access to mental health support, delivering Work Well, giving people earlier and better access to integrated work and health support, reforming fit notes and working with employers to improve occupational health. Through our next generation of welfare reforms, we are breaking down the barriers to work. Our chance to work guarantee will enable people on incapacity benefits to try work without fear of losing their benefits if a job does not work out. As the OBR has confirmed, our reforms to the work capability assessment will reduce the number of people on those benefits by 371,000. That is 371,000 more people getting the support they need to enter employment.

As part of our back to work plan, we are also tackling long-term unemployment, because the longer people stay in unemployment, the less likely they are to rejoin the workforce. That is why we are phasing in more rigorous requirements for fit and able jobseekers, with more time with work coaches, more intensive support and mandatory work placements. Ultimately, if a claimant does not engage with the support they are being offered, they will lose their benefits, underscoring our belief that we should always be there for those who need our support, but we must equally be fair to taxpayers.

By contrast, for all the protestations from the Opposition that they have changed, they are not fooling anybody. They are squeamish on conditionality, weak on sanctions and completely out of touch with the British public, who rightly expect a welfare system in which everyone meets their obligations.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

rose—

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

I am being asked to conclude, so I think I need to do that. [Interruption.] I have been pretty generous in giving way to just about everybody who has sought to catch my eye.

This is a Budget that rewards work and will grow the economy. It comes on the back of a once-in-a-century challenge that this Government have met. We have turned the corner, and this Budget takes us further still. It rewards work with lower taxes, it delivers growth, it makes work pay, and it ensures a brighter future for us all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Conservative Government’s seventh Chancellor gave his second Budget—thankfully, the last before the general election. Ministers have repeatedly claimed that the economy has turned a corner, but they have driven it into a dead end. Our economy is smaller now than when the Prime Minister entered Downing Street. Not only was GDP per person down in every quarter last year, but it will be lower at the end of this year and lower, too, in four of the next five years. In this Parliament, we have had the biggest hit to living standards on record, and we have the highest tax burden for 70 years.

But people in this country do not need statistics to tell them the dire state we are in or that they are paying more but getting less. They see it every day in the higher cost of the weekly shop and in their gas and electricity bills. They see it in higher mortgages and rents and in soaring childcare costs. They see it in their crumbling school buildings and in the 8 am scramble to see their GP.

The argument I want to make today is that one of the central reasons why the Government have failed on the economy is that they have failed on work. For all the claims made by Ministers, the OBR lays bare the scale of their failure and the appalling cost to the British people.

The official unemployment rate is low, but that is not because a record proportion of people are in work. We are the only country in the G7 whose employment rate has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility revealed that our employment rate will be lower by the end of this year than it forecast in November; that the rate will be lower in five years’ time; and that in 2028-29 it will still not be back to where we were before the pandemic. That is the truth of what another five years of the Conservatives will bring.

The reality is that increasing numbers of people are leaving the labour market and not even looking for work. Whatever the Secretary of State says—he repeated it today—the OBR says that economic inactivity is increasing, not declining. It says that economic inactivity is proving more persistent than it previously thought. It is no longer declining from the post-pandemic high and has instead rebounded to a total of 9.3 million people—the highest in over a decade.

Much of the problem is driven by poor health, an issue raised by many hon. Members in this debate. On the Labour side of the House, we know that a healthy nation is critical to a healthy economy and that the Government are failing on both. Some 2.8 million people are now not in work because of long-term sickness—an all-time high. Many of them are over 50: often women struggling with bad hips, knees and other joints, often caring for elderly parents at the same time.

There has been an extremely worrying increase in young people out of work due to mental health problems, with many lacking basic qualifications. As the Centre for Cities has shown, all those problems are far worse in northern towns and cities, which the Conservatives promised to level up, but which have once again borne the brunt of their economic failure. In places such as Blackpool, Blackburn, Middlesbrough and Hull, if we include the hidden unemployed in the figures, it takes the official unemployment rate from 5% to 20%. The Labour party thinks that unacceptable.

The waste of individual potential is appalling, as hundreds of thousands of people who want to work are written off and denied help to get back on their feet. This is a waste for British businesses, which are desperate to recruit and need the talents of everyone in our country to grow and succeed. It is an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money, too. Over the next five years, 600,000 more people will be on sickness and disability benefit, which will cost an extra £33 billion—more than our day-to-day expenditure on defence.

The impact on our economy is profound. Yesterday, the OBR said that

“higher and rising levels of inactivity”

are offsetting increases in the size and growth of our population, and will leave GDP in five years’ time

“unchanged…and the level of GDP per person…lower.”

There it is in black and white: the Conservatives’ failure on work is a drag on the economy, a drag on growth, and a drag on living standards and money for our vital public services. That is not good enough.

[Mel Stride]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

I will willingly take an intervention.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady. She is rightly not happy with the level of economic inactivity; that is why we are bearing down on it. Given that the level of economic inactivity was higher during every year of the last Labour Government, would she like to comment on their record on it?

[Liz Kendall]

I will not take any lessons from a Government who are overseeing economic inactivity at record levels. The number of people out of work due to sickness is at a record level, resulting in soaring costs for individuals and livelihoods. If I were the Secretary of State, I would put in place a proper plan for reform, not offer half-baked programmes, rehashed and re-announced schemes, and more of the same empty rhetoric on benefits.

[Mel Stride]

If our plans are half-baked and rehashed, why has the OBR confirmed that by the end of the forecast period, 371,000 fewer people will be receiving the long-term sickness and incapacity benefits to which the hon. Lady refers? If our plans are half-baked, why will 371,000 fewer people be on those benefits?

[Liz Kendall]

The OBR says that there will be 600,000 more people on those benefits, and the total cost will be £33 billion. The Secretary of State tries to deny that the schemes are rehashed. Well, let us look at the reform to fit notes announced in 2023. Back in 2017, what did the Chancellor, then Health Secretary, announce? Reform to fit notes, taking them beyond GPs. The Government recently announced that there will be mandatory work placements. In 2011, what did they announce? A mandatory work activity programme. In 2017, the current Chancellor, as Health Secretary, said:

“We will appoint an Expert Working Group on occupational health.”

They are the same policies with the same failure. It is absolutely time for a change.

We do not have to go down this road; we can choose a different path. Under a Labour Government, we will do so. Our back to work plan will tackle the root causes of worklessness by driving down waits for NHS treatment, and we will recruit 8,500 more mental health staff. We will ensure that employment support is tailored to individual and local needs, by overhauling jobcentres to end the tick-box culture, and devolving employment support to local areas. In every part of the country, we will create more good jobs in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy. We will make work pay and improve the quality of work, by ensuring a genuine living wage, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, and strengthening rights to flexible working. And we will do more.

There are now 850,000 under-24s who are not in education, employment or training—one in eight of all our young people. That is a terrible waste for them and for our country as a whole. Given that half of all mental health problems start before people turn 14, we have to intervene earlier, so the first part of our offer to young people is about providing specialist mental health support in every school, and walk-in access in every community. That way, we will tackle one of the key drivers of worklessness before it takes hold. Secondly, we will deliver 1,000 new careers advisers, and good-quality work experience, so that young people leave school ready for work and ready for life.

Thirdly, we will overhaul skills by creating new technical excellence colleges and reforming the Tories’ failed apprenticeship levy, which has seen apprenticeship starts by young people fall by a third. Our new growth and skills levy will help young people to get the skills that they need, including by offering them a second chance at basic skills and pre-apprenticeship training if they did not get the right qualifications at school. Fourthly, we will provide new employment advisers for young people in our young futures hubs. They will offer joined-up specialist help and support, because the old, one-size-fits-all approach will not work when it comes to tackling this problem. Finally, we will overhaul access to work for young disabled people who want to work, so that they know what equipment, adaptations or personal support they will get before they start, giving them the confidence to take the plunge.

Our proposals are fully costed and funded, and will be paid for by scrapping tax breaks for private schools and closing the tax loopholes enjoyed by private equity fund managers. That is our offer to young people. This year, they and the rest of the British public face a choice: another five years of stagnation, low growth, high costs and worklessness under the Tories, or a long-term plan to get Britain building again, growing again and working again under Labour. The public know it is time for change. Let us have an election, and let us have the guts to have it now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

19. What steps his Department is taking to help people save for the future.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Automatic enrolment has succeeded in transforming pension savings, with more than 11 million employees being automatically enrolled in a workplace pension since 2012 and an additional £29 billion in real terms saved into marketplace pensions in 2022 compared with 2012.

[Mrs Drummond]

I was very pleased when the Government brought in auto-enrolment for pensions in 2012, as making sure that everyone saves for a pension should prevent pension poverty. What is the rate of take-up of these pensions and what provisions are the Government putting in place to help those on low wages build up a pension pot to help provide a decent income in retirement?

[Mel Stride]

The increase in take-up since 2012 has been extraordinary, particularly among women, for whom the rate was 40% in 2012 and is now 86% and in line with men. My hon. Friend will know about the 2017 review that we conducted on auto-enrolment. As and when we bring in those changes, that will mean 3 million more people auto-enrolled with £2 billion of additional savings each year.

[Craig Tracey]

I am chair of the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group, and financial inclusion has been one of our key areas of focus, particularly following the pandemic which showed that anybody has the potential to quickly become vulnerable. What are the Government doing to increase the financial resilience of our constituents and make them best placed to cope should such an unforeseen event happen again?

[Mel Stride]

May I first recognise the fantastic work my hon. Friend does on financial resilience? The Government have, through very difficult times, come forward with £104 billion of cost of living payments between 2022 and 2025. I would point my hon. Friend to one particular scheme: the help to save scheme encourages low-income households to save and we have recently extended that by 18 months, until April 2025.

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Sunderland. Not here. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I agree with the Secretary of State about the cross-party success of auto-enrolment, which has doubled the proportion of eligible employees saving for retirement, but we know that the current regular auto-enrolment contribution of 8% of earnings is not enough to deliver the standard of living in retirement that most people hope for. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that minimum level of contribution will need to be increased?

[Mel Stride]

The contribution rates of the employer and employee are a very important matter, and we keep both under review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon. Always here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

When I was 16, my mother took me to Danske bank—or Northern bank as it was then—and opened an account for me. When I was 18, my mother phoned up the pension man in Ballywalter and told him I needed a pension. My mother has been a big guide in my life. What would the Secretary of State say to encourage the young people of today to take their mother’s advice on opening bank and pension accounts and planning for the future?

[Mel Stride]

I think the response to that is, always take your mother’s advice. I always did—and look where it got me. At the age of 16, I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have been saving into a piggy bank, putting his little pennies in a porcelain pig. I direct him to the gov.uk website, where there is a plethora of information for young people and those of all ages about saving and what the Government are doing to assist.

[Mr Speaker]

The good news is that Mrs Shannon is still giving him advice. I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

One of the simplest ways to get people saving for the future is by ensuring that they are enrolled in a pension scheme, but all too many are currently excluded from auto-enrolment, particularly women, who are twice as likely to miss out. The Government have known about this problem for years. They first proposed widening the criteria in 2017. Last year, thanks to a private Member’s Bill, the Minister was given the power to do just that, but still we have seen no update on when this will be implemented. Can the Secretary of State shed light on when these vital changes will take place?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady draws attention to savings for women. I have already stated that 40% of women invested in workplace pensions back in 2012, and that has skyrocketed to 86% today. There are now 2.3 million employers providing pensions through the auto-enrolment route, and there is £29 billion more in workplace pensions in 2024 than was the case in 2012. The hon. Lady refers, I think, to the 2017 review, which I have already referred to. That is currently under review.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to help people with long-term sickness into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of levels of benefits.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Welfare is there to help those who need assistance, including many of the most vulnerable, which is why we increased most benefits by 6.7% for 2024-25. That was on top of an increase of 10.1%, including the benefit cap, in 2023-24.

[Peter Grant]

That is all very well, but the rate of inflation for low-paid families has been significantly higher than the headline rate of inflation for some time. That means that those families who were struggling badly last year are struggling even worse this year. Citizens Advice has shown that families on low incomes have less disposable income this year than they had last year. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is time to introduce an essentials guarantee so that nobody on universal credit or another income-based benefit can ever be allowed to fall below a level where they cannot afford the basic essentials of life?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we keep all benefits under review. I point him to various things that we have done to ensure that we look after those lower-income families, including increasing the national living wage by about 10% in both of the last two years; the increase in the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile announced at the last fiscal event, which will be worth about £800 a year for about 1.6 million people; and, of course, the tax cuts that the Chancellor was able to bring forward, which for an average earner are worth £450 a year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Rather than deal with the known policy failures within the benefits system, the Government seem to be more focused on penalising people through, for example, the two-child cap. Last week, the Labour party joined the Conservatives in prioritising lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses rather than the two-child cap on working women. Does the Secretary of State take comfort in the fact that his cruel legacy will be protected by the Labour party?

[Mel Stride]

I am not going to get involved in the crossfire between the Scottish National party and the Labour party, other than to say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not need a continuing argument and disagreement. I am sure that when the questions come to an end, you can speak outside.

[Mel Stride]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The two-child cap is there for good reason: so that families in those circumstances are taking the same kind of decisions that others—the taxpayers funding benefits—have to take.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to help reduce child poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

21. What steps his Department is taking to reduce labour inactivity.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

There are, of course, significant costs related to an increase in long-term sickness and illness rates in work. That is why we have our £2.5 billion back to work plan, to help 600,000 disabled people and people with health conditions start and stay in work. That approach, along with others, has seen economic inactivity reduce by 330,000 since its peak during the pandemic.

[Andrew Western]

NHS waiting lists are currently at 7.8 million, with more than 177,000 people on waiting lists in my own NHS trust area. When it is this difficult to access medical treatment, it is no surprise that we have a record 2.8 million people out of work due to ill health. Does the Minister accept that this Government’s failure on the NHS is stymying economic growth, denying people the dignity of work and costing taxpayers billions of pounds?

[Mel Stride]

On NHS waiting lists, there has been progress, in that the two-year waiting lists have almost been entirely dispensed with and those of 18 months have been very substantially reduced. Our Department recognises that work is part of the solution to improving people’s health, which is why we are putting forward the WorkWell service, bringing together medical input and work coach input; fit note reform to help at an earlier stage of the journey; and the reforms to the work coach assessment. All those things are moving towards getting more people into work, which is good for their health.

[Simon Fell]

In Barrow and Furness, an estimated 4,000 people who could be contributing to the labour market are not doing so. I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend and his team, in the Barrow jobcentre and centrally, who, alongside Team Barrow, have worked with local employers and skills providers to help get those people back into our incredibly tight labour market. Will he pass my thanks on to those teams? May I also encourage him to visit to see their good work?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting all the good work that has gone on in his constituency. I believe he opened a jobcentre only as recently as 30 January in his constituency. He is a doughty campaigner for and supporter of employment in his patch. He asks whether I will visit his constituency. I would certainly like to consider that, but my hon. Friend the Employment Minister might also visit, because she just said she was particularly keen to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

There we are.

[Antony Higginbotham]

Burnley and Padiham has so much going for it—with the rest of Lancashire, our area is the manufacturing powerhouse of the United Kingdom—but still has stubborn levels of economic inactivity among people who could be contributing to economic growth and having financial security, which we all want them to have. What more can we do to help those people? In particular, can my right hon. Friend do more to join up with other Departments so that areas such as Burnley, which might have structural problems, get more intensive support?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend asks what approach we can take to resolve the issues that he has raised. We have announced a doubling of universal support, a scheme with which he will be familiar; WorkWell, to which I just referred, bringing together medical support and work coaches; and reform of the fit note system so that we get involved earlier in the journey that many people experience when they fall out of the workforce into longer-term sickness and disability benefits. Overall, the evidence is clear: economic inactivity is down by 268,000 on the year, and by more than a third of a million since its peak during the pandemic—a 52% reduction.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

12. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs provided by businesses in Witham constituency.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

The Office for National Statistics estimates that 36,000 jobs were provided by employers in Witham in 2022.

[Priti Patel]

As it is Apprenticeship Week, will the Secretary of State join me in thanking businesses in Witham for everything that they are doing to employ youngsters and put them on that apprenticeship pathway? Those businesses, however, are crying out for a labour market strategy that will help them to harness the skills and the upskilling that they need in certain sectors. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to advance that, and push it, across other Departments?

[Mel Stride]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the extraordinary work that she does locally to promote apprenticeships. I believe she was involved in a jobs fair on 24 January, hosted by Reed, which was highly successful. The employment rate in her constituency is 81%, well above the national average, which I put down almost entirely to the work that she is doing. She asked how we would proceed. We already have swaps, bootcamps and returnerships, but I am indeed looking at specific areas of the labour market, particularly in the context of migration changes, where we may be able to do more on a strategic basis.

[Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the potential cost of restoring parity in the level of state pension received by UK citizens living overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Autistic people have a huge amount to offer in the workforce, which is why we set up the Buckland review in April 2023, led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), to look at the barriers to autistic people gaining employment and to ensure that we have a more inclusive workforce for them.

[Mr Sheerman]

May I push the Minister on what progress has been made by the Buckland review? Will he also remind jobcentres up and down the country that people on the autism spectrum have great talents and often need only slight workplace modifications of simple things such as lighting or noise levels? This could open up a source of real talent for our country.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Small changes can often make a big difference, not just for autistic people but for the businesses they go on to serve and work in. He will have to be a little more patient about the Buckland review report coming out, but it will not be long. I also point him to the Access to Work and Disability Confident approaches, which both do exactly what he suggests.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

22. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the number of people who are not eligible for statutory sick pay because they are paid less than the lower earnings limit on levels of inequality in Stoke-on-Trent North constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

The Department has been busy supporting the most vulnerable, with the third instalment of the £900 cost of living payments starting to reach the bank accounts of 8 million low-income households tomorrow. We are also on the verge of publishing our disability action plan. We have seen economic inactivity decrease by 330,000 since its peak during the pandemic.

I have made it a priority for my Department to engage across Parliament. As Secretary of State, I appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee in December. The pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), appeared before the Committee on 10 January; the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), appeared before the Committee on 31 January; and I believe the Minister for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), and Viscount Younger, our Lords Minister, will appear before it next month. There will be a statement on the disability action plan this afternoon.

[Helen Hayes]

Lambeth Council and Southwark Council have worked hard over the past few years to deliver targeted cost of living support through the household support fund. Many local people continue to face serious hardship as a consequence of this Government’s political decisions, but local authorities do not know what, if any, funding they will receive after 31 March. When does the Secretary of State expect to confirm the future of the household support fund, so that local authorities can plan ahead?

[Mel Stride]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognises the importance and value of our various interventions. Ten million payments have been made through the HSF since its inception, and £1 billion has been put into the fund in the last year. She will know that her question is a matter for the Chancellor, and the matter will quite possibly—I really do not know—be dealt with at a future fiscal event. There is no news on that at this stage.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

T3. Anglesey has an active autism parents’ group, and brilliant coaches like Ryan Gibbs—he runs a “fighting for Autism” class—who work hard to support autistic children and each other. For parents such as Shelly Rankin Jones and young autistic people such as Becca Pierce, can the Minister update the House on the Buckland review of autism employment?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, because autism is an issue of great importance to the House and to her personally. I know about the work that she is doing with Ryan Gibbs, Becca Pierce and Shelly Rankin Jones. She will know that the Buckland review was instigated in April 2023 and will conclude relatively shortly, with a report being published online. I look forward to visiting her disability jobs fair in Holyhead at the end of this week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind Front Benchers that this is topical questions, which are meant to be short and punchy, and they should stick to the rules. Do we understand each other?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady refers to the latest weighted numbers just released by the Office for National Statistics, which show that unemployment as a percentage is lower than originally forecast. She cannot get away from the fact that there are 330,000 fewer people in economic inactivity since the peak. As a result of our work capability assessment reforms, the Office for Budget Responsibility has scored us as having 371,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits than would otherwise have been the case.

[Liz Kendall]

The former health Minister Lord Bethell says that he is “gobsmacked” by the figures, and that

“the economic hit will be hard”.

The Minister would do well to listen to his words. Yesterday, the Education Secretary said that the Government cannot guarantee that their promises will be met on childcare, which parents need in order to work. Today, their Prime Minister admitted that he has failed on NHS waiting lists, which the long-term sick need dealt with if they are to get back to work. Why does the Secretary of State not do the decent thing and admit that he has failed too, and adopt Labour’s plan to cut waits, roll out breakfast clubs, overhaul jobcentres and get Britain working again?

[Mel Stride]

We are getting Britain working, unlike the Opposition, under whose last Administration unemployment increased, youth unemployment went up by 40%, some 25% more women were unemployed and 1 million people or thereabouts were stuck on long-term benefits for almost a decade. That was a disgrace.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T4. Sizewell C will provide an enormous number of job opportunities in Suffolk. Will my right hon. Friend outline the work that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing to ensure that local people have every opportunity to work on the project and acquire the necessary skills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

T7. People with disabilities often take on voluntary roles, as there can be societal barriers to gaining employment. My constituent Philippa has a son with Down’s syndrome who volunteers, providing much-valued music workshops for local children. How can the Minister ensure that the work of people with disabilities is properly recognised in the workplace?

[Mel Stride]

I congratulate Philippa’s son on the very good work that he does. We have disability employment advisers in our jobcentres. I am visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency later this week; I know that he has been involved in the Denbighshire project, including the We Mind the Gap programme for young people, and I will be interested to discuss that and other matters.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

T2.     Fife Gingerbread, based in my constituency, contacted me to point out that most of the provisions in the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023, which was unanimously agreed by the House and received Royal Assent at the end of June last year, have still not been brought into force. That means that far too many vulnerable people who want to make a claim through the Child Maintenance Service find that abusive ex-partners use it to control their behaviour. Why is it taking so long to put in place the measures in the Act?

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I wish to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for helping to guide my private Member’s Bill through Parliament. It lowers the pension auto-enrolment age from 22 to 18, and abolishes the lower earnings threshold. Briefly, has the Secretary of State received reassurances from the Chancellor that the necessary forms will be implemented in the spring Budget?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Those matters are under active consideration.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T6. Given that the Secretary of State has just said that the continuation of the household support fund after the end of March is up to the Chancellor, and given that, last week, we had the support of all parties in Westminster Hall for the continuation of this vital fund, will he assure the House that the subject is a top priority in his negotiations with the Chancellor?

[Mel Stride]

The specifics of my negotiations with the Treasury remain between me and the Treasury. As I have said, the any of those decisions on the HSF are matters for the Treasury.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

T9. In 2005, the DWP failed to make a reasonable decision about targeting information at the women affected by state pension age changes. The ombudsman ruled that there was maladministration. These women, in Dudley and around the country, deserve more than just an apology. Does the Minister accept these findings, and if not, will he explain why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T10. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State mentioned the assessment period for cost of living payments, but people on four-weekly pay schedules miss out on support because they fall foul of the assessment period rules for universal credit. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people missing out, and what remedy do they have?

[Mel Stride]

Cost of living payments can be affected by when people are paid, and therefore by whether they are on universal credit and qualify at precisely that point. I do not have the figure to hand that the hon. Lady requests, but I will of course get back to her with it.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

This morning’s report by the Academy of Medical Sciences revealed that our appalling child health and infant mortality rates are worse than those of 60% of similar countries and is the key driver of child poverty. What assessment has the Secretary of State undertaken to make on the impact that stopping the household support fund in April will have on relative child poverty and, subsequently, infant mortality?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady will know, the number of those in child poverty has decreased by 400,000 since 2010. We do not yet have a decision on the household support fund, to which she refers, but I point her to the very significant uplift in the local housing allowance, which will give 1.6 million people £800 a year more on average, thereby taking many of them out of poverty.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

From unanswered emails to unreturned calls, it has been heartbreaking to hear from so many vulnerable constituents who are in a state of limbo and distress, and trying to chase up personal independence payments. When will Ministers ensure that people can get the support that they need in a timely and straightforward manner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State point out to the Chancellor that many councils have used the household support fund to pay £3 per day per child during the school holidays to families entitled to free school meals, and that if the fund closes at the end of March, those families will be straight into hardship in the Easter school holidays?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his representation, and indeed would be grateful for any others that he is minded to make to me as we conduct our ongoing review on where we go with the household support fund.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

When will the Minister wake up to the fact that working as an apprentice in engineering is a fabulous career choice, and well paid? Will she come up to Huddersfield to look at Cummins, whose apprentice system is first rate?