Timms Review: Updated Terms of Reference and Next Steps
Stephen Timms Excerpts(3 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
In June, the Government announced it would launch the Timms review, the first ever full review of personal independence payment, with the aim of ensuring we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment.
Listening to those with lived experience will be critical to the success of any future reform. That is why we launched the pathways to work consultation, to which the Government will respond today. It is why we ran collaboration committees to bring together groups of disabled people and other experts to inform the design of the support we offer. And it is why we will co-produce the Timms review with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and other experts.
Over the summer, I met with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, disability, welfare and carers’ charities, think-tanks and other experts to discuss how we should approach co-production in the Timms review. This is the first time that the Government have undertaken coproduction on this scale, although there have been many good examples in local and devolved contexts, and we wanted to take time to learn from those with expertise and experience.
Having taken this feedback on board, we are today publishing updated terms of reference and setting out the next steps for the review. The updated ToR contain a small number of revisions to reflect the current Government policy following changes to the Universal Credit Act 2025, and to clarify the review’s overarching aims and fiscal parameters to give clarity to participants, stakeholders and the public. In line with the principle of co-production, they give the review a broad remit to set its own strategic direction, priorities and workplan. The revised ToR have been published on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/timms-review-of-pip-terms-of-reference
I can also confirm today that I will co-chair the review alongside Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE. I look forward to drawing upon their wealth of knowledge and experience as we begin this work together.
As co-chairs, we will oversee a steering group with a majority of its membership made up of disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, ensuring disabled people are at the heart of the review. The group will be recruited through an open and transparent expression of interest process, which has launched today and is available on gov.uk and will run for four weeks.
We will share the EOI, which is available in a range of accessible formats, widely with stakeholders and across our networks.
The steering group will not work alone; it will shape and oversee a programme of participation and engagement that brings together the full range of views and voices.
We are ready to listen and learn, and we are committed to continued transparency and evaluation as this work continues. The review is expected to report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by autumn 2026, with an interim update expected ahead of that.
[HCWS1005]
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Timms Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Access to Work does an important job, but current delays with the scheme, and our ambition for an 80% rate of employment, point to the need for reform. The consultation, launched in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, closed on 30 June. We are reviewing all aspects of the scheme in the light of the responses that we received.
Bobby Dean
A constituent came to my surgery the other week who felt pretty frustrated that the Access to Work scheme, which once supported him, was pulling the rug from beneath his feet as he progressed in his career. He has been a model example; he has not let his multiple neurodivergent diagnoses hold him back. He has worked hard and, with support, has earned a promotion to a deputy leadership position. At that point, the DWP decided to reassess him, and it downgraded his support—right at the moment when he felt he needed to maintain that support, given his new responsibilities. Can the Minister assure us that when the reforms come, they will ensure that people are supported over the progression of their career, as well as into work in the first place?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Obviously, I do not know the details of the case that he refers to, but it is important that Access to Work and our wider employment support enable people not just to get into work, but to thrive once they are there, exactly as he says.
Marsha De Cordova
The Access to Work scheme provides vital support, and it is one of the best forms of support for blind and partially sighted workers, but when their awards come up for review, they find that their support and awards are being significantly reduced. Given the Government’s commitment to keeping Britain working, will the Minister explain why blind and partially sighted people are seeing their support cut? Will he agree to meet me and sight-loss organisations to see how we can address some of the challenges with the scheme?
Sir Stephen Timms
There has been absolutely no change in the policy on Access to Work, but there has been more scrupulous application of the existing policy and guidance over the last year. That means that Access to Work awards have been more consistent, and I know there have been cases in which support has been reduced. I am looking forward to attending the forthcoming meeting of the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment, which my hon. Friend chairs; that might give us an opportunity to discuss the issues she has raised.
Martin Wrigley
On 20 May, I met the Minister to speak about Access to Work claims that were being denied, changed or reduced, all contrary to the guidelines. The Minister assured me that it was a communications issue, that the guidelines had not changed and that officials were going to fix the problems by speaking to the local jobcentre. The problems were not fixed. Since then, both Dawlish Gardens Trust and the No Limits café in Newton Abbot have ceased to provide Access to Work services because the system just is not working and, they said, every claim was being rejected. That assessment has been mirrored by the Access to Work Collective. Who changed the guidelines, and why? Are they simply being ignored to save money at the cost of vulnerable adults? If the Minister would like more information, I am happy to meet him again.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman again, but I assure him that the policy has not changed. In fact, just last week we published the spending figures on Access to Work, which went up by 17% in the last year and by 32% in the year before that. I do not know what happened in the particular case the hon. Gentleman referred to, but would be happy to look at it further.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Access to Work is vital. At the high end of the scale, it can sometimes be more expensive. I have in my constituency a very senior person in the world of theatre who runs Graeae theatre. She requires Access to Work support but, even with the right support, there is not enough for her needs, because she needs a British Sign Language interpreter with her at all times. Graeae theatre is at the pinnacle of assessing what people need, and I would love to invite the Minister to visit it, because staff there are great at supporting disabled people into work, with and without Access to Work support.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am aware that a big chunk of Access to Work funding goes on British Sign Language interpretation, and it is not unusual for people who draw on that support to hit the cap, which increased last year and is now £69,920 a year. We will look at that, along with all other aspects of the scheme, in the review we are undertaking.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Back in May last year, while in opposition, the Labour party was outraged to learn that the average processing time for applications to the Access to Work programme was running at 43.9 days. In fact, so outraged were Labour Members that they made it a manifesto pledge to tackle that problem. After more than 15 months in government, Labour is far from having slashed waiting times; applicants now have to wait an average of 93.6 days. That is more than twice the waiting time under the previous Government. After a year in government, the Labour party has doubled the misery and uncertainty suffered by disabled people—why?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are fixing the very serious problems left behind by the previous Government. The number of people who are processing Access to Work applications has been increased by 118 since May last year, but the hon. Gentleman is right that delays are still a problem. That points clearly to the need for reform, which is what we are getting on with.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are determined to open up opportunities in work for people with health conditions. The Keep Britain Working review will be published soon. In Pathways to Work, we have 1,000 work advisers supporting this group, and we will devolve powers, so that areas can shape their own joined-up local work, health and skills offer.
Steve Race
I recently visited Pluss in Exeter, which supports people living with physical disabilities and mental health conditions back into employment. I met some of the fantastically committed mentors, who provide tailored training and support, helping hundreds of people who have been long-term unemployed into meaningful jobs, boosting their confidence and helping them rebuild their lives. Does the Minister agree that under the last Tory Government, disability employment was shockingly neglected? In contrast, this Government’s recent announcement about Connect to Work funding for Devon will help many more people back into the workplace.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disability employment gap has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since 2010. What he refers to in his constituency sounds like a great example of exactly the kind of resource we want to draw on in each area to make sure that disabled people have the opportunities in work that they were denied in the past.
Emma Lewell
The Motability scheme provides a lifeline to people with disabilities, allowing them to get to health appointments, study, maintain employment and so much more. Cuts to the scheme risk increased health needs and increased unemployment, which are likely to cost much more than any short-term savings. Does my right hon. Friend agree that before any proposed cuts are implemented, it is vital to carry out a proper impact assessment?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no changes to the eligibility conditions for the mobility component of the personal independence payment, or indeed other aspects of PIP, until the conclusion of the review, which I will be leading and co-producing with disabled people. That is expected to report in autumn next year.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When severe mental illness strikes, it can be devastating and totally debilitating, but the problem from the Department’s point of view is that its symptoms are invisible. There have been reports of people faking mental illness in order to gain benefits. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department has appropriate checks in place?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, appropriate checks are in place. As I have just mentioned, we are undertaking a review of the PIP assessment, and we will need to look carefully, together with disabled people, at the way in which those decisions and judgments are made.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
At a recent roundtable at the Eyres Monsell club for young people in my constituency, parents told me that their young adults with learning difficulties, who volunteered for years, often with major supermarkets, still struggle to secure work. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that young people with high-functioning learning disabilities in long-term volunteering roles can access clear pathways into paid employment?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. He will have seen, as many hon. Members will have done, recent publicity about a particular case of this kind. At the moment, the proportion of people with severe learning disabilities who are in employment is tiny, so we are working with employers and some very good supported internship programmes in the hope of opening up opportunities for work, and I hope we will see many more opportunities in the future. We appointed an expert panel earlier this year to look at how better to support people with neurodivergence into work, and the panel is coming forward with some interesting proposals.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Health Equity North recently produced an analysis for the Select Committee that revealed that getting just 5% of people with disabilities or health conditions into employment would yield cost savings of over £12 billion. What progress is being made with employers to enable sick and disabled people who want to work, and are able to do so, to get into employment?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I agree with her about the tremendous value, for the people who benefit and for the economy more widely, of opening up opportunities in employment in the way that she described. That is exactly what the Keep Britain Working review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, is looking at. I am looking forward to Sir Charlie’s report, and I am sure my hon. Friend will find it interesting. I expect it to be published quite soon.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Four thousand people in Somerset, many of them with disabilities, are being transitioned from employment and support allowance to universal credit. They were assured that they would not lose out, but one constituent waited three months with no income at all, until an intervention by me and the Department. Somerset was not warned about this transition, which is causing it huge difficulties with assessing the implications for council tax benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that, just as people were told, they will not lose out in the transition to universal credit?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am not sure why the news of the transition did not reach Somerset; the plans have been quite well publicised. We have put in place a careful enhanced support journey for people, including a number of people on ESA, who might struggle with the transition. The hon. Gentleman raises a particular case, but if there are other cases where there are difficulties, we are able to provide extra support to ensure that people can make the transition without hardship.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Some 975,000 people are being paid carer’s allowance in England and Wales, including some 900 people in the hon. Member’s constituency.
Dr Chambers
We all know that carers give everything to care for their loved ones—physically, emotionally and financially. The Government received the carer’s allowance report three months ago, and under Lib Dem pressure have agreed to publish it by the end of the year. Do we know how many carers will be unfairly penalised in the six months between the Government receiving the report and publishing it?
Sir Stephen Timms
I agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of the degree of commitment and sacrifice being made by very large numbers of carers right across the country. As he has said, the report, which we commissioned from Liz Sayce, will be published by the end of the year, together with the Government’s response—and his question will be addressed in that response.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Work coaches are required to tailor work-related requirements to claimants’ capabilities and circumstances, and they can pause them if that is appropriate.
Josh Babarinde
My constituent Ross has neurodiversities and is in employment, working at a garden centre, but his income is supplemented by universal credit. After inadvertently missing a telephone appointment with a job coach, he was sanctioned, losing out on two months-worth of rent, and he risked being made homeless and losing his job if his parents had not been there to step in. Can the Minister assure folks such as Ross that they will be powered up by our benefits system, not punished when they make innocent mistakes?
Sir Stephen Timms
We certainly do want the system to support people such as Ross. If work-related requirements are missed, the reason for that should be asked for, with seven days allowed for an answer. There should also be a pre-referral check before a sanction referral takes place. If the hon. Gentleman would like to send me the details of what happened in that particular case, I will happily look into it.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Demand for Access to Work has risen sharply. I mentioned earlier that spending went up by 17% over the past year, but I do not think Access to Work can replace a well-designed support programme. That is what we are determined to put in place, and the Department’s new, independent disability advisory panel will help us work out the best approaches to employment support.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Government have made a promise that those transferring from legacy benefits to universal credit will find themselves no worse off, yet Liberal Democrat colleagues from all over the country are finding that people are worse off. Will the Minister share evidence of how the Government are supporting the most vulnerable where they find themselves worse off?
Sir Stephen Timms
Transitional protection is available for people making the transition across, and I spoke earlier about the support being provided through the enhanced support journey to people for whom the transition may be particularly difficult. I am thinking, for example, about some people on employment and support allowance. If the hon. Member is worried about particular cases and would like to send me the details, I am very happy to look at them.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member raises an important point, and I agree about the importance of not wasting talent in the future. That is the reason for the reforms we are introducing. Earlier this year we set up an expert panel to advise us on how best to support people with neurodivergence into employment, building on the work of Sir Robert Buckland and his review of autism employment in the last Parliament. We have now received that advice from the expert panel and are considering how to take that work forward.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
I would be very happy to look into the particular case the hon. Member raises. Of course, an appeal process is available, so I hope that her constituent has submitted an appeal. If she lets me have the details, I will gladly have a look at the case.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
There is a problem in the interaction between housing benefit, which provides housing support for people in supported accommodation, and housing support in the universal credit system. That interaction does cause difficulties, and I think that is what the hon. Lady is referring to. We are looking at that at the moment. We are talking to other parts of government and working with people such as YMCA and Centrepoint to look at the problem and what we can do to fix it.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Giving sick and disabled people agency and drawing on lived experience sets the only path to getting policy right, so that they can access work appointments and get out of their homes, avoiding worklessness, health decline and isolation, with their mobility support needs recognised through PIP. Further to the Minister’s previous answer, will he ensure that any policy reforms to PIP mobility payments are fully co-produced with sick and disabled people?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review of the PIP assessment, including the mobility element of that benefit, will be undertaken fully in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I will be setting out very shortly how the review I am going to be leading will be undertaken.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Business is crying out that the Employment Rights Bill will cost jobs. Now, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the spiritual home of the Secretary of State— [Laughter.]—says it will cripple the jobs market, especially for young people. It is not a laughing matter. What is the Secretary of State’s view? Will the Employment Rights Bill help his Department to increase employment, or will it cost even more jobs?
Neurodivergent People: Employment
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey; you have a long-standing record in this area. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on securing the debate and the telling points she made in opening. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to a good debate.
We want to achieve an overall 80% rate of employment, as key to delivering the economic growth and widely shared prosperity we all want. To achieve that, the employment rate among disabled people, those with health impairments and neurodiverse people has to increase. The disability employment gap was first measured in 1998 and fell steadily from then until 2010, when it reached about 30%, but it has been stuck there more or less ever since. It moved around a little bit, down to 28% at one point, but it is pretty much where it was in 2010. That means, as we have rightly been reminded, that many people who have a great deal to contribute and want to work have been denied the opportunity to do so. That needs to change. We specifically need to get the disability employment gap back on to a downward track.
As we have been reminded, the picture is worse still for neurodivergent people. Only 31% of autistic people are in any sort of employment, compared with 55% of disabled people overall. There is a gap within the disability employment gap, to which the Buckland review drew attention. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) in highlighting how big a contribution neurodivergent people are making and can make if they have opportunities and if the barriers holding them back are removed. We need to do much better to deliver the economic growth we need and because good work is good for health and wellbeing.
Like others in the debate, I have made a series of visits to look at initiatives supporting people with learning disabilities into work. It is great to hear so many examples read into the record. Last December, I went to New Warlands farm in Durham, to the North East Autism Society’s vocational training centre. I met autistic adults working on the farm doing interesting things, such as making superb juice from apples grown in the orchard. The farm also had programmes on woodworking and IT.
In April, I visited Little Gate farm near Rye, mentioned by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) when speaking for the Opposition. I was also impressed by what is happening there. We looked at two social enterprises that equip adults with learning disabilities and autism with skills and pathways into paid work. In June, I visited Northwick Park hospital, which every year recruits autistic people for supported internships, many of whom go on to permanent roles in the NHS. The staff love that impressive programme, which the hospital has been running for years. The hospital chief executive made the point that NHS staff find it extremely rewarding to support the interns and they enjoy that part of the job.
In July, I visited DHL at Heathrow to see how the DHL UK Foundation works alongside charity partners to provide work placements to 16 to 25-year-olds with learning disabilities or autism who are currently out of work. Last month, I went to Yusen Logistics in Wellingborough to see how that global supply chain logistics company is working with Mencap as part of its interns and outcomes programme, giving practical work experience to young people moving from education into employment—a difficult transition as we have rightly been reminded—or on to further study. The colleagues of the person with a learning difficulty I met in Wellingborough emphasised to me both how good he was at his job and, notwithstanding the support he needed, how much they enjoyed working with him.
Tom Gordon
The Minister has outlined a plethora of different places he has visited. I invite him to visit some of the fantastic organisations in my constituency, such as the Artizan café, for people who have learning disabilities and neurodivergence; Horticap, a garden centre with a similar scheme; or Henshaws college in Harrogate. I wish to press the Minister a little. He talks about how these are all fantastic organisations and schemes; many of them are charities and they face an increase in employer national insurance contributions. Will the Minister outline how he might support these fantastic organisations in helping and supporting people with neurodivergence?
Sir Stephen Timms
Unfortunately, I cannot promise to visit all the employers that have been mentioned in the debate, but we certainly want to support them because they are doing a great job. I will say a bit more about what we are doing, and planning to do.
We need evidence for policies to deal with the barriers that neurodivergent people face in getting into work and once they are in the workplace, such as those rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. We need evidence to establish and clarify the characteristics of successfully inclusive workplaces.
In January, as has been mentioned, we set up an independent panel of academics with expertise in and lived experience of neurodiversity, led by Professor Amanda Kirby. It is reviewing the evidence on neurodiversity in the workplace to assess why neurodivergent people have poorer experiences and a low employment rate, and what we can do about it. Its advice will also focus specifically on how employers can support neurodivergent people at work, which has rightly been an important theme in the debate. We need practicable strategies for employers that are simple for them to adopt, with low cost or no cost at all.
The panel conclusions will build on the Buckland review of autism employment, which focused specifically on autism. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who was the Employment Minister until the weekend, I met Sir Robert Buckland after the election to discuss his valuable contribution to this policy area. I am looking forward to the panel’s findings and recommendations in the coming weeks—I think somebody asked when that would be.
Mims Davies
As well as the expert panel and the updates from the Buckland review, will the Minister undertake to use his good offices in the DWP and across government, including the NHS and other public sector employers, to ensure that the learning is used? As we have heard, it is tough in the wider labour market. Support is already given to care leavers across Government and by the Minister’s own Department; will he lead the way in the DWP?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, there are opportunities to do exactly that. We will look at the recommendations from the independent panel along with the results of the “Keep Britain Working” review, which is led by Sir Charlie Mayfield and is investigating how employers can reduce health-related inactivity. We want to bring all this work together to make a real difference. We are expecting the recommendations from Sir Charlie Mayfield in the autumn, so there will be a lot going on this policy area, with opportunities for improvement.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response to all the requests we have made collectively and individually. I am very keen to show that we can have an exchange of views and share ideas. In particular, I want us to share some of those ideas with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the good things we do there can advise Ministers here, and vice versa. Does the Minister intend to ensure that will happen? If so, I would welcome it.
Sir Stephen Timms
I have had a number of opportunities to speak to my counterpart Minister in Northern Ireland and I am sure there will be more—I have always enjoyed those conversations. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland but that might also be a possibility.
The new jobs and careers service that we are setting up is a key reform. To echo the points made in the debate, the new service will deliver much more personalised support than has been provided in the past, moving away from the one-size-fits-all, tick-box approach that far too many people think of as characterising Jobcentre Plus. We need to be different from that. The pathfinder we have set up in Wakefield is testing how a personalised offer could be much more responsive to different support needs, including those of neurodivergent people in particular. We are testing how to make the jobcentre environment more accessible for both jobseekers and DWP staff with support needs, including neurodiversity. The findings of the academic panel will also help us to shape the new service.
Our new Connect to Work service, which is being locally commissioned and will cover the whole country by early in the new year, includes a specialist pathway for those with particularly complex barriers, using the IPS—individual placement support—methodology and the supported employment quality framework, which has been overseen by the British Association of Supported Employment, which I think the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned. There has been close collaboration with BASE in drawing up Connect to Work, which I think will make a big difference over the next few years.
Participants in Connect to Work will be given a dedicated specialist employment support adviser to work alongside them, understand their career goals and help them to address specific barriers to employment. We are taking a very different approach. The methodology is being tightly defined—the IPS and the BASE framework—but the service is being commissioned entirely locally. The decisions about who to involve and which organisations will take part are being made entirely locally by, I think, 42 groups of local authorities around the country. I am hopeful that that increasingly devolved approach will allow us to make substantial progress.
Mims Davies
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. That commissioning model will be music to most constituency MPs’ ears. How will DWP monitor the local output and changes for people on the ground?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member raises a good point. What we will need to do, and what we are committed to doing, is to publish the outcomes from all 42 different programmes so that everybody can see how they are getting on. I am sure that some areas will do better than others, and where there is a problem, we will be able to provide additional support.
Daisy Cooper
We would all welcome a framework for monitoring the outcomes and the results, but we have heard today that people face many barriers in trying to access these kinds of schemes. Will the Government consider requiring service level agreements, so that when people apply to the schemes or engage with them, they know what they are going to get, how they are going to get it, and how quickly they are going to get it?
Sir Stephen Timms
I need to correct myself: there are 47 areas, rather than 42. It will be for each local area to work out how best to engage people and establish the kind of confidence that is needed. I hope Members will watch closely what happens with Connect to Work, because it is a big opportunity.
A number of Members understandably raised Access to Work. There are problems with Access to Work, reflecting the substantial surge in demand for the scheme over the years—I think last year it went up by 30%, and I think it went up by a larger proportion in the year before and the year before that. We have put well over 100 extra staff on to administering the scheme, to try to get on top of the growing delays and waiting lists, but they have continued to grow, so in the “Pathway to Work” Green Paper, published in March, we consulted on the reform of Access to Work. How can we do a better job, hopefully supporting a larger number of people, and certainly without the lengthy delays that people are suffering at the moment? We have set up a collaboration committee, which includes representatives of disabled people’s organisations, to work with us on the proposals. We are currently working on the consultation responses with that committee, and I look forward to bringing forward proposals for reform before too long.
Tailored support is crucial for young people. There are nearly a million people not in education, work or training, which is more than one in eight of all young people. A significant number of them are almost certainly neurodivergent. Our “Get Britain Working” plan includes the new youth guarantee for 18 to 21-year-olds, to ensure that young people can access quality training, apprenticeships or help to find work, and eight trailblazers are testing localised approaches to support young people, including neurodivergent young people who are likely to face additional barriers and who need further support.
A number of Members rightly reminded us of the crucial role of employers in all this, and we heard some great examples of employers committed to providing support for neurodivergent employees. The Government have a range of support in place for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) was absolutely right to make the point that employers can find it difficult to know what they are supposed to do. It can be quite nerve-racking for conscientious employers who want to do the right thing. Our digital offer is support with employee health and disability, and tailored guidance on supporting employees, including how to effectively support those who are neurodivergent or have learning disabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) rightly highlighted the importance of that support.
I hope we are going to see more job carving, whereby an employer takes an existing role and reshapes it to suit the skills of a particular individual. One example that the Department knows of is a firm that had three vacancies for legal secretaries. It wanted to address the under-representation of disabled and neurodivergent people in its workforce, so it created a new support role across the team for tasks that did not require legal expertise, and that role was filled by an applicant with autism. That person did a great job, and other team members said afterwards said that the initiative made them want to stay with the firm. There is an important point here about the support from employees generally for doing the right thing for neurodivergent employees and would-be employees.
The disability confidence scheme that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), referred to encourages employers to create disability inclusive workplaces. I think we can improve it. We need to make the criteria for accreditation more robust, and the Department has been consulting a wide range of stakeholders, organisations and individuals on ideas over the summer. Look out for more on that over the coming months.
In our ambitious programmes of strategic reform—the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the “Pathways to Work” consultation, the “Keep Britain Working” review and the neurodiversity panel—we are starting to set a new course. We are keen to continue to work across Government—a point rightly raised—as when we jointly provided evidence to the House of Lords special inquiry Committee on the Autism Act 2009 earlier in the year. We all have a part to play—every Department of Government—and I look forward to seeing the report and the recommendations from that Committee on the development of a new strategy later this year.
This subject matters to every single neurodivergent person who has been denied the opportunity to thrive and achieve their best in the past—but it also matters to every one of us, to the whole economy and to our whole society. I hope we see substantial progress in the years to come.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Timms Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March that incapacity and disability benefits spending would be £90.7 billion in 2029-30. That figure will be updated at the Budget. Better employment support and removing perverse work incentives in universal credit are the key to getting more people into work.
John Lamont
Just two months ago, the Secretary of State was left humiliated after being forced to significantly water down her botched welfare Bill. If the Government had pressed ahead with the Bill as originally drafted, how much less would taxpayers be spending on benefits by 2030?
Sir Stephen Timms
As I have said, the OBR will update its forecast at the time of the Budget. We inherited a terrible situation, with record numbers of economically inactive people. Economic inactivity is down since the election, and employment is up. Those developments have been encouraging, but our reforms will go much further. The £3.8 billion that we are investing in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds—the biggest package ever—will be key.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we must invest in community mental health services if we are to reduce spending on mental health disability?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome the NHS 10-year plan published by our right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, which gives a new priority and commitment to mental health support. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important part of tackling the problems that we need to resolve.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have made it clear that we will co-produce our review of the PIP assessment with disabled people and representatives of disability organisations. The review will cover the assessment for the mobility component, which leads on to the Motability scheme, and other entitlements to which PIP is a gateway.
Danny Kruger
But with no possibility of any of those entitlements coming down or any of the spending being reduced? We have 1.25 million foreign nationals claiming universal credit, most of whom are not in employment. I hope that the Minister does not plan to co-produce his plans with foreign nationals—although, knowing Labour lawyers, I expect they will say that the European convention on human rights demands that they do just that. Does he think that subsidising more and more foreign nationals is what the British social security system is for? If not, will he restrict sickness benefits to British nationals only, as we have argued for?
Sir Stephen Timms
It is crucial that we have a fair system. We are reviewing universal credit at the moment, considering problems such as the five-week wait that was inserted when universal credit was introduced and changes to ensure that universal credit effectively tackles poverty and does the job that we need it to do. Fairness will be at the heart of the system.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to navigate. The health transformation programme will deliver radical improvements and much better efficiency.
Anna Sabine
In my constituency, I was contacted by a woman who had suffered two strokes, resulting in permanent right-side paralysis and ongoing mobility difficulties. Despite her condition being permanent, she has had to undergo reassessment for PIP and has appealed for it to be reinstated. I welcome the Government changing the reassessment requirement for people with long-term health conditions. Will the Minister clarify what steps the Government are taking to reduce the stress and difficulty of the PIP application process for people with those serious health conditions?
Sir Stephen Timms
The health transformation programme that I mentioned will allow the introduction of a modern digital service, which is certainly not how the existing arrangements could be characterised. It is a big job—the programme will run until 2029—but the outcome from it will be a process that is simpler and easier to understand, which I hope will reduce the stress to which the hon. Member has rightly drawn attention, and shorten decision times.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Over the summer, I have been doing a deep dive into children with special educational needs and disabilities, not least the transition points between education and work. As part of the Timms review—the Minister’s own review—will he ensure that that interface is looked at, so that there is a smooth transition for young people, as opposed to the cliff edges that many of them face when making the transition into work?
Sir Stephen Timms
The review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We will increase the number of face-to-face, rather than remote, PIP assessments, and will increase the number of health professionals in assessment centres in order to deliver that. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that it is important to keep telephone or video alternatives for those who need them.
Edward Morello
Many West Dorset constituents have written to me with deep anxiety about the assessment for personal independence payments, and especially the use of remote assessments. One constituent, despite previously being awarded enhanced PIP, has endured months of repeated phone assessments, which have triggered severe panic attacks and high blood pressure, and caused lasting psychological harm. The Secretary of State has given me a commitment to moving away from phone-based assessments, so what additional resources will be made available to support the roll-out of more face-to-face assessments in West Dorset?
Sir Stephen Timms
There was a switch to remote assessments in the pandemic, for obvious reasons, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the point repeatedly that, as was said in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, we want to move sharply back to face-to-face, while keeping alternatives for those who need them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have spoken to people for whom the prospect of going to an assessment centre provokes the kind of anxiety that his constituent experienced as a result of a telephone call. We are speaking to the assessment providers, and we have already increased the proportion of face-to-face assessments. That work will continue.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Government are right to want to see more people with disabilities and long-term sickness get into work. Sadly, this was used to justify the savage cuts to benefits that were proposed earlier this year. My colleagues and I are hearing reports of cuts to current awards through Access to Work, and to new payments, being done by the back door. Can the Minister cast any light on whether guidance has been given to civil servants on such cuts?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
There has been no change at all to policy on Access to Work. As the hon. Member knows, we did consult, in the Green Paper earlier in the year, on reform to Access to Work. There has been a big increase in demand for it, and reform is needed. We are looking at the consultation responses at the moment. There may have been instances in the past where the published guidance was not always properly applied. It is being applied now, and that may give rise to some of the issues that have been drawn to his attention, but there has been no change at all in the policy.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Sir Stephen Timms
We have set up a panel of experts to advise us on how best to improve employment prospects for people with autism and neurodivergence. As the right hon. Member knows, we will be undertaking a review of the PIP assessment, co-producing it with disabled people, so that we have a clear way forward for who should and who should not be entitled to the personal independence payment.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The carer’s allowance overpayments review was due to report in early summer. It is now 1 September. In recent weeks, I have become aware of a case where the DWP has informed somebody that they now owe it £18,000. That is a scandal. When will the review report back?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have received the report from Liz Sayce, and I want to thank her very much for her review of earnings-related overpayments of carer’s allowance. We are currently considering the findings. We are, as the hon. Lady knows, making a number of changes. We have increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance in a way that I think will help avoid these problems in the future. We are looking at the possibility of a taper on carer’s allowance. We will come forward, before very long at all, with both the report and the Government’s response to it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
As someone who proudly served the trade union movement for two decades before entering this place, I warmly welcome the Government’s improvement to workers’ rights. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that no one is left behind in the vital reforms to statutory sick pay?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I was delighted to see the establishment of the disability advisory panel a week or so ago. [Interruption.] I am so sorry, Mr Speaker; I have a cold. How will the advisory panel link with the co-production in the Timms review?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have announced that Zara Todd will be the chair of the Department’s disability advisory panel. The panel was announced in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper last year. Separately, we will set up a group to work with me on the review of the PIP assessment. I will, of course, talk to the disability advisory panel about the arrangements, but they will be separate structures.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Despite his new role in riding to the rescue of the Treasury, is the Pensions Minister still available to fulfil in principle the undertaking he gave me before the recess to have a meeting about the plight of ExxonMobil pensioners and the difficulties in them getting the discretionary surplus benefits to which I think they should be entitled?
Third British Sign Language Report: 2024-25
Stephen Timms Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
This Government are committed to ensuring that our communications are accessible and inclusive, and to reducing the barriers deaf people face in their everyday lives. The British Sign Language Act 2022 supports this by creating a greater recognition and understanding of BSL, and requires the Government to report on what Departments listed in the Act have done to promote or facilitate the use of BSL in their communications with the public.
The first report, published in July 2023 under the previous Administration, set out a baseline of activity delivered by Government Departments, highlighting the areas of Government communication that required further improvement. The second report, delayed due to the UK general election, was published in December 2024 and showed that there had been an increase in the use of BSL compared with the first report.
Although the BSL Act requires a report to be published every three years, this Government are committed to increased reporting frequency to ensure we drive progress. The third BSL report, covering the period from 1 May 2024 to 30 April 2025, has now been published. A copy of the third report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
This third report demonstrates an increase in the usage of BSL by Government Departments in public-facing communications since reporting started in 2023. The overall number of new BSL communications produced by Government Departments has not increased since the last reporting period—it was 176 in the second reporting period, falling to 140 in this reporting period—due to a pause in Government activity through the pre-election period in 2024. This still represents an overall increase since the first reporting period, when the overall number was 76. In addition, although they are not counted in the data for the third reporting period, it is important to note that some of the content and publications produced in earlier reporting periods remain valid and are continuing to provide up-to-date information to BSL users. It is also encouraging to see that some Departments have published BSL activity for the first time. However, it is clear that there is still more that can be done.
This year, each ministerial Department has been asked to produce a five-year BSL plan, setting out how it plans to improve the use of BSL within its Department. For many, this includes increasing awareness of BSL across the Department. These plans are published by each Department alongside the third report.
This Government want to ensure that disabled people’s views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Government communications being accessible to deaf and disabled people is essential in supporting us to achieve this goal.
This Government are committed to going further. We will be working with the BSL Advisory Board, with deaf people and their representative organisations, and with Ministers across Government, including our lead Ministers for disability, to continue to make tangible improvements for the deaf community.
We will continue to publish a report on an annual basis up to 2027, going further than the frequency required by the Act. The next report will be published in July 2026.
[HCWS861]
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Stephen Timms ExcerptsWednesday 9th July 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Member advocates powerfully for his constituent and all those with fluctuating conditions, who never know how they will fare, perhaps because of the season of the year. Some people may develop more chest infections over the winter while being well for the rest of the year, yet they will be receiving a health element of just £50 a week, not £97 a week.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Will my hon. Friend recognise how the Bill protects people in exactly the situation that she describes? Those who receive the universal credit health premium at the moment will be fully protected, and once they go into work they are likely to continue to receive universal credit, so their protection will carry on. If their income exceeds the universal credit level, there will be a further six months when they are earning at a significant level when if they come out of work afterwards they will come straight back on to the position they were in at the start. There are very strong protections for exactly the people she is describing.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week.
My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support.
I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.
Kirsty Blackman
No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?
Sir Stephen Timms
The form of words in the Bill, including the word “constant”, exactly replicates the way the severe conditions criteria are applied at the moment. The “constant” refers to the applicability of the descriptor. If somebody has a fluctuating condition and perhaps on one day they are comfortably able to walk 50 metres, the question to put to that person by the assessor is, “Can you do so reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time?” If the answer to that question is no, the descriptor still applies to them. The question is whether the descriptor applies constantly. If it does, the severe conditions criteria are met.
Kirsty Blackman
That clear information from the Dispatch Box is what I was asking for. Hearing that will give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister is aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at when it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the descriptors. If people are not asked if they can or cannot do something reliably on other days, I will expect disabled people’s charities to use the Minister’s comment from the Dispatch Box when they bring mandatory considerations or challenges to say, “The Minister was utterly clear that I have answered the question correctly, in line with the legislation.” I encourage them to do so.
Given the way the legislation is written, I will still not support the severe conditions criteria and the cut. I agree with colleagues who have said that 750,000 people are expecting to lose money as a result of this. As one of my Labour colleagues, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), has said, this is still £2 billion of cuts on disabled people that the Labour party has chosen to make, or that is what it says in the impact assessment. It has chosen to make that cut to 750,000 people, asking itself, “Where can we make £2 billion of cuts? I know, let’s do it to disabled people.” We could have an additional £2 billion in taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on that money for the everyday items that they desperately require.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.
I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria,
“at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.”
Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”.
I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he has done on this, and for helpfully highlighting that concern. It might help if I read briefly to him what the current training material for people applying the severe conditions criteria says about what level of function will always meet limited capability for work and work related activity:
“Although this criterion refers to a level of function that would always meet LCWRA, this does not in any way exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.
The key issue is that the person’s condition is not subject to such variability that their function would ever be significantly improved from the LCWRA descriptor identified”.
I hope that that, together with my earlier intervention, will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. If someone can work, they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was absolutely right to remind the House that that principle underpinned the creation of the welfare state by the post-war Labour Government. If someone needs help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who cannot work must be able to live with dignity. Those are the principles underpinning what we are doing.
The UK, uniquely in the G7, has a lower rate of employment today than we had before the pandemic. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Hendon were right to point out that that is uniquely a UK problem. In large measure, it is because of the traps in the universal credit system that this Bill addresses. The system needs to be fixed and it is urgent to get on and do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) was right to point out to the House that delay is not the answer. The delay being called for by the Conservatives is not the right way forward. Abandoning people, in the way the system has for years, has been catastrophic. There are 2.8 million people out of work on health and disability benefits, and hundreds of thousands want to be back in work and say they could be, if only they had the support to get back into a job. We are determined to provide them with that support.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
When the Bill started its life, the Government were advocating for cuts for PIP and UC health claimants now and in future. They conceded that now was not right and that it was only for future claimants. Then they conceded that it should not be PIP claimants in future, leaving only UC health claimants. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anxiety and confusion that this has caused people in the disabled community? Would it not be better to pause, wait for the review and do it properly?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do.
It is particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers, with nearly 1 million not in employment, education or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) was absolutely right to highlight that point. We need to get on and tackle the disability employment gap.
The Bill addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit. It protects those we do not ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment, and the poverty impact assessment, which has now been published, makes it clear that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. We are rebalancing support here.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.
A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should
“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”
in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway. I will give away a little bit later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and I have discussed, I do not agree that the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year, and with no four-point threshold, I do not think it is in anybody’s interest to rush it. I accept her proposal, in subsection (4) of her new clause, for a group to co-produce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it. I will chair the group, and we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings, with around a dozen members and with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics.
My hon. Friend has made helpful suggestions for who some members of the group might be. We will want disabled parliamentary representation to be involved in the process as well, and arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her that the majority of the group’s members need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part.
Dr Tidball
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many aspects of new clause 11 and for his assurances from the Dispatch Box. I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote if he can offer further assurances that there will be sufficient links between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on PIP to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard.
Sir Stephen Timms
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows.
Steve Darling
I really welcome the fact that disabled groups are going to be meaningfully engaged, according to the Minister’s proposal, and I look forward to seeing the full details of that, but how will carers’ groups be engaged as well? I would welcome some assurance on that.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raised that point very reasonably in the debate, and it is certainly something we need to consider as well.
Ms Creasy
I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way for a moment or two.
On Parliament’s handling of the review outcome, which is also raised in new clause 11, I would envisage a ministerial oral statement. I can commit on behalf of the Government that there will then be a general debate on it, in Government time, and that the legislation to implement the review outcome will not be brought forward until that has happened.
Sir Stephen Timms
Not just at the moment.
Clause 1 introduces the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. The previous Government ran universal credit down. They did not uprate it; they froze it, forcing mass dependence on food banks. The increase is accompanied by a reduction, as we debated, in the health top-up for most new claimants, as set out in clause 2.
Clause 3 set out that the health top-up would be frozen until 2029-30 for existing claimants and for those with the most severe lifelong conditions or those near the end of life. The Government amendment means that, for existing claimants, the standard allowance plus the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation up to 2029-30. That also applies to people with severe lifelong conditions who we do not ever expect to work and those near the end of life. Clause 4 and the amendment to it mirror the universal credit changes in employment and support allowance.
The Bill will protect existing claimants in a powerful way, including those with fluctuating health conditions, but it will move decisively to a more proactive, pro-work system. That is what we need, and the protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway.
The protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment and who are on the LCWRA rate is that if they go into work, they are likely—depending, of course, on their income—to stay on universal credit, so that protection will continue while they are in work. If their income rises to the level where they are lifted off universal credit, for six months they will retain that protection, and if they go back, they will return to their original rate, so there is very strong protection there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not give way.
Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
Vicky Foxcroft
Will the Minister ensure that the universal credit health element forms part of the co-produced Timms review when reviewing the assessment process, as the UC health element will be assessed under the new PIP assessment? Furthermore, can we ensure that all disability benefits and support are in scope, so that we can truly get an assessment process fit for the future?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that the Green Paper set out our proposal that the PIP assessment will in future also be the gateway to the universal credit health top-up, giving it indeed a broader role. Our aim is specifically a co-produced benefit assessment. If that works well, there may well be a strong case to apply the same approach, maybe even using the same or a similar group to other challenges, and perhaps including other aspects of the health and disability benefits system, but that would need to follow successful completion of the task immediately in hand.
Let me finally make an important point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and others. The severe conditions criteria in the Bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present. That is in guidance. It is being moved in this Bill into legislation. It does take account of Parkinson’s and MS because people need to meet these descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable timeframe, so I can give a firm assurance to those concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those with fluctuating conditions. The word “constantly” here refers, as I said in my earlier intervention, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms.
This Bill begins to repair a broken system that holds people back, by removing work disincentives from universal credit. We will provide record employment support for disabled people, for people with health impairments—
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Stephen Timms ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Pakes
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I would, if possible, give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability Duracell batteries to turbocharge his work in this area.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
During this debate, my hon. Friend and others across the House have raised concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading. We have heard those concerns, and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove clause 5 from the Bill in Committee. We will move straight to the wider review—sometimes referred to as the Timms review—and only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review. The Government are committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your clarification. We have just heard that a pivotal part of the Bill, clause 5, will not be effective, so I ask this: what are we supposed to be voting on tonight? Is it the Bill as drawn, or another Bill? I am confused, and I think Members in the Chamber will need that clarification.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We have had a passionate and eventful debate. We have heard the concerns, and the Government will amend the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have set out, but the system we have inherited does not work. Uniquely in the G7, our employment rate is still lower than before the pandemic. Every other G7 country has got back to where it was before, or better, but we have not. The system is trapping hundreds of thousands of people needlessly in low income and inactivity. It tells people that they cannot work, and for many of them that is simply untrue. We have to change that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I am sorry to come in so early in the Minister’s peroration, but we have limited time. Can I have the assurance, on the concession given this evening with regard to the Timms review, that its outcome and recommendations will be in primary legislation, not delegated legislation?
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me say a little about the announcement I made in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) earlier on. We have listened to the concerns expressed in the debate, specifically about the new four-point threshold being implemented before the outcome of my review. As I have said, we will in fact move straight to my review and make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors only following that review.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister to confirm at the Dispatch Box that clause 5, which specifically references the need for claimants to score four points in order to receive the daily living allowance, will be removed from the Bill?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that is the case. We will table the amendment to do that.
Let me say in answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who raised this point perfectly properly in the debate, that we will also remove the parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. He suggested that that would mean removing clause 6, but it does not mean that, because there are a lot of other things in schedule 2, which is referenced in clause 6. Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 addresses the points that we are dealing with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make a little further progress. I still have not quite answered the question put to me in the first place in the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). His question was about whether the outcome of the review will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation. That depends on the outcome of the review and the form of the assessment we take forward. We will come back to that when we have concluded the review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make a little bit of headway before I give way again.
Under the last Labour Government, in the 12 years up to 2010, the disability employment gap fell steadily. In 2010, as soon as the Tories and Lib Dems took over and scrapped the new deal, it stopped falling, and it has barely shifted since. This Bill opens up the chance for proper support into work once again for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds. We will provide that again, recognising that with—for example—far more mental health problems among young people, the needs post pandemic will be different from those of the past. I listened with great interest to the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), calling for a target for the disability employment gap. She makes a strong argument, and that is the kind of approach that we need to develop as we bring forward our plans for employment support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way at the moment. The Bill opens up that possibility, and it deals with work disincentives inserted into universal credit by the previous Government. The current system forces people to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment, and once so classified, it abandons them. We have to change that system.
Simon Hoare
The House knows that not only is the Minister an honourable man, but he has spent the largest proportion of his parliamentary career looking at these issues. He must surely understand, however, that the confusion that has been expressed in this place is now being felt and expressed in the country at large. I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by its own sponsoring Ministers in such a cack-handed way—nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interests of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it, and start again?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman one of the things that the Bill does. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to bring up a family on the standard allowance of universal credit. The Tories reduced the headline rate of benefit to the lowest real-terms rate for 40 years. Families have to rely on food banks, and people aim to be classified as sick for the extra benefit. The system should not force people into that position; it needs to be fixed, and the Bill makes very important changes in that direction.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I came here today with the intention of voting against the Government on this Bill. I have to say that with clause 5 having been removed —which, as I am sure everyone at home will be delighted to know, completely withdraws PIP from the scope of the Bill—there is consequently nothing to vote on. However, could the Minister give me some comfort by confirming whether or not the Timms review is going to take place within a spending envelope?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure my hon. Friend that the review is not intended to save money—that is not its purpose. The review is to get the assessment right and make sure we have an assessment that will be fit for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I need to make a little more progress. As a number of Members highlighted in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), a key step in this Bill is the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the standard allowance of universal credit. Actually, it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of benefit for decades, and of course, the Tory party is against it. The Tories froze benefits time and again, and created the work disincentives and mass dependence on food banks that this Government are determined to now erase.
We are, of course, also concerned that the future cost increases of PIP should be sustainable. Let me just look back at the record of those cost increases. In the year before the pandemic, 2019-20, PIP cost the then Government £12 billion at today’s prices; last year, it cost £22 billion. We want the system to be sustainable for the future. That is extremely important, because many people with large costs arising from ill health or disability depend on PIP. Those people need to be confident that the support will be there in the future, as well.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is doing an admirable job defending the farcical. Last week, there were £5 billion of savings. Today, there were £2.5 billion of savings. Then he came to the Dispatch Box and did three more U-turns. As he stands at that Dispatch Box today, how much will these new measures save the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will set out those figures in the usual way.
The last Government wanted to change the personal independence payment from cash to vouchers. They wanted to take the independence out of the personal independence payment, and we opposed them. It has been suggested that the benefit should be frozen, but the costs that the benefit is contributing to are continuing to rise along with all the other costs, so we oppose that, too. Some argue for means-testing, but disability imposes costs irrespective of income. We reject all those proposals.
Let me just make a comment about the concern that has been expressed—it does not arise now, given what I have announced—about a two-tier system. A two-tier system is completely normal in social security. PIP replaced DLA in 2013, but half a million adults are still on DLA today, and that does not cause problems. Parallel running is normal, and actually it is often the fairest way to make a major change.
Barry Gardiner
I think that Members on the Government Benches appreciate the concessions that the Minister has already made. When he is talking about whether measures will be put in primary legislation, he must understand that Members will not be able to amend things if they are not in primary legislation. That is a key concern when we do not know the outcome of the review.
Sir Stephen Timms
My answer to my hon. Friend is the one I gave earlier: we need to await the outcome of the review and the assessment that it develops to determine whether it will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I want to make some further headway. In her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) drew attention to the fact that she and I had known each other for a long time, and that is correct. She urged us to listen to the voices of our constituents. In February, someone I had not met before came to my constituency surgery. He explained to me that he lost his arm aged six in a road accident. As a result, on leaving school at 16 he could not find a job. He tried really hard, but he could not find an employer that would take him, until in the year 2000 somebody told him about the new deal for disabled people, which found him a job. He then worked for 23 years without a break in a whole series of different jobs. He brought up his children and he paid his taxes, until in October 2023 he was in an unsatisfactory zero-hours job and he left it. To his dismay, he has not been able to find a job since. He came to me as his local MP to ask where to get help again, like he had from the new deal, but unfortunately that was all scrapped by the Tories and the Lib Dems after 2010. We are determined now to provide proper support again, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced further early funding for that support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not be giving way again. The Tories were never really interested in the disability employment gap. They had a brief flirtation in the 2015 general election campaign, when David Cameron suddenly announced a target to halve the gap. Unfortunately, as soon as that general election had been safely won, that target was immediately scrapped, and they reverted to type.
We do care about disability employment. That is what we are making changes to address. In this Bill, we are making the changes to deliver.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Work and Pensions
Stephen Timms Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 822.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):
Sir Stephen Timms
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Timms Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The current PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to follow. Alongside proposed legislative changes, the Department’s health transformation programme will greatly improve the experience of applying and, I hope, increase confidence in the outcomes of the assessment as a result.
Victoria Collins
The response to my recent written question on disability benefits applications listed the 18 most common disabilities and health conditions and showed that hundreds of thousands of people were awarded fewer than four points in all living activities and will miss out on the daily living component of PIP. They include people like Jemima in Harpenden, who suffers from severe physical disabilities and thyroid cancer and finds even walking very difficult. Will the Government please commit to reforming the criteria to better reflect the full complexity of claimants’ conditions?
Sir Stephen Timms
I recognise that many people who are on the PIP daily living component who did not get four points on anything at their last assessment are feeling rather anxious. However, what they need to know—I hope the hon. Member will reassure her constituents on this—is that it is the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility that most of them will nevertheless still have their PIP after their fresh assessment once the changes have been introduced. They will be introduced in November next year and an individual’s assessment will take place whenever their first award review is after that date. The OBR is confident and clear that most of those people will keep their PIP.
Charlotte Cane
Over 4,500 people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire claim PIP, and they are not just anxious, as you put it; they are seriously worried that they are going to lose the payments and, with them, their independence. Contrary to what you said—sorry, contrary to what the Minister said—the Government’s own data suggests that 85% of people getting standard payments and 11.5% of those getting enhanced payments will lose support under the proposed changes. What steps is the Minister taking to support those who will be affected, including to make sure that their health and eligible care needs are met and, most importantly, that they can maintain their independence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.
Sir Stephen Timms
It is really important for claimants of PIP that its funding should be sustainable into the future. The trajectory of the past few years has been unsustainable. We are taking action to put that right. The hon. Member is wrong to say that because people did not get four points last time, they will not keep their PIP. As I said, the view of the OBR, which I think is correct, is that most of them will. We are consulting on how to support those who will lose their PIP as a result of the changes that we have announced.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Ministers have highlighted that the PIP recipients who are expected to lose payments make up one in 10 of the total PIP caseload. That suggests that the impact of the cuts will be limited, but it still represents 370,000 current recipients, who are expected to lose £4,500 on average. However, those numbers rest on a set of assumptions that the OBR has described as “highly uncertain”. DWP data shows that 1.3 million people currently receiving PIP daily living payments would not meet the new criteria. Before MPs are asked to vote on imposing such appalling poverty, will the DWP or the OBR provide further evidence underpinning those claims?
Sir Stephen Timms
The OBR has published its assessment, and my hon. Friend is right that it has assessed that one in 10 of those receiving PIP in November next year will have lost it by 2029-30—one in 10; not the much larger proportion that we were hearing about earlier. Following that, we will be able to introduce the biggest ever investment in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds. We do not want any longer to trap people on low incomes for years and years; we want people to be able to enter work and fulfil their ambitions. That is what the investment will allow.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Is it not the simple and sad truth that any MP who votes for the upcoming welfare Bill will be voting to take PIP from disabled people who need assistance to cut up their food, wash themselves and go to the toilet?
Sir Stephen Timms
No. Members will be voting for reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far too long. We are putting that right.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are putting in place a fairer system. Action was urgently needed. In the year before the pandemic, PIP cost the Government £12 billion at current prices, and last year it cost £22 billion. It also went up last year alone by £2.8 billion. PIP required urgent action, and that is what we are taking.
Danny Kruger
I am just sorry that there has been so little consultation with the victims of the changes that the Government are introducing. One area where the Government do not seem to be looking for savings is in the Motability scheme. It was supposed to help physically disabled people get around, but now we have 100,000 new people a year joining the scheme, many of them not physically disabled at all. One in five of all new car purchases are bought through this scheme, and it is costing taxpayers nearly £3 billion a year. I know that the Minister will blame us for the system, but the fact is that the Government are not even looking at Motability. They have had a year, and it is their policy now. Will the Minister commit to a proper review of the Motability scheme, and if not, why not?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am not sure whether the shadow Minister wants me to go further or not so far—he seems to be facing both ways. He is right that we are not at this point proposing any changes to the Motability scheme.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?
Sir Stephen Timms
Among households as a whole, there will be more net gainers than net losers from the package. The reason for that is the increase to the standard allowance of universal credit, which according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the biggest increase to the headline rate of benefit since at least 1980. We are consulting on support for those who will lose carer’s allowance because of the changes and considering what additional help they may need, including for health and care needs. The hon. Member will have seen in the Bill we have published that we have committed to a 13-week run-on of benefit after an assessment decision so that people have time to adjust to the new situation.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
I commend my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, including his seminal 2022 independent review. He is right that care leavers need support as they move to independent living. The Department for Work and Pensions at the moment exempts care leavers from the shared accommodation rate, and provides support toward sustained employment and career progression. We will certainly consider if there is more that we can do.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend’s constituent will benefit from the big increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which we have talked about, and from free school meals for her children. Somebody who starts work or increases their hours may also be eligible for support with up-front childcare costs. The flexible support fund can award the full cost for up to a month of fees to a childcare provider in advance of the care being delivered, so that may be an option for his constituent.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Previous changes in eligibility for disability benefits have resulted in significant adverse health impacts, including an additional 600 suicides in 2010 and 130,000 more people with new onset mental health conditions in 2017. What estimates have the Government undertaken of the impacts on health of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading next week?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am looking forward to answering questions about these matters in front of the Committee on Wednesday morning. We are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?
Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings
Stephen Timms Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western—for the first time, I think—and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) for bringing this important debate to the House. She made the point that this is the first time under the current Government that we have had the opportunity to debate this issue, so I congratulate her on securing this debate.
I share in the grief of all those who, like my hon. Friend, have lost somebody close to them as a consequence of exposure to asbestos. As she and others reminded us, it is still by far the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK—it is responsible for 5,000-plus deaths per year—and many people live with the impact of asbestos-related disease. I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of the journalist Steve Boggan, who has highlighted this topic very helpfully.
Hanging in my office in the House of Commons, a few yards from here, I currently have a portrait of Mavis Nye and her husband, Ray. Ray Nye became an apprentice in the Chatham dockyard in 1953 and worked there for a number of years. Asbestos was everywhere. In 1957, during his apprenticeship, he met Mavis. He refers to that encounter as
“the most wonderful thing ever to enter my life”.
They married, and Mavis used to launder his overalls. At some point she breathed in asbestos dust. Fifty years later, in 2009, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
We have heard about very long latency periods. It appears that in Mavis’s case, it was 50 years before she was diagnosed. Thanks to pioneering treatment at the Royal Marsden hospital, she lived for another 14 years. She and Ray established the Mavis Nye Foundation to inspire mesothelioma victims. She was a force of nature. She sadly died in 2023, but it was her wish that her portrait should be hung in the House of Commons. In fulfilment of that wish, it hangs in my office this afternoon. It will soon be returned to Ray, but I am glad that we have been able to fulfil that wish and help celebrate the contribution of a remarkable woman—just one of the many thousands who have died as a result of earlier asbestos exposure in the last couple of years.
In Britain we have a mature and well-established approach to the management of asbestos in buildings. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive and other regulators, requires duty holders to assess whether asbestos is present, what condition it is in and whether it gives rise to a risk of exposure. The duty holder must then draw up a plan to manage the risk associated with asbestos, which must include removal if it cannot be safely managed where it remains. There is an existing legal obligation for duty holders to remove degrading asbestos and to share details of asbestos in their premises with people who work regularly in a building and may potentially disturb or damage materials which contain asbestos.
Ian Lavery
I place on record my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the sterling work that he has done with regard to mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease in the past, but what has been mentioned is not working. We need the same as in other parts of this nation, where there has been a programme of statutory removal, but we are not doing that here in England. I wonder if my right hon. Friend can say why we are different from other nations of the UK.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will come on to address exactly the point that my hon. Friend raises. He is absolutely right to do so. Let me just make the point that asbestos does need to be removed before any major refurbishment work or before demolition. Under current arrangements it will eventually be removed, albeit over an extremely long time.
There are around 40,000 notifications of asbestos removal jobs every year. The HSE inspects to check that duty holders are managing asbestos effectively, both in the public and commercial sectors. Those inspections, I am pleased to say, have been significantly stepped up since the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report published in April 2022, at a time when I was Chair of the Committee, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred. That report was critical of the decline in the number of asbestos inspections and enforcement notices since 2010. The report pointed out that between 2011-12 and 2018-19, while the total number of enforcement notices from the HSE fell by 10%, the number of asbestos enforcement notices had fallen by 60% to less than 200 in the year 2018-19.
Increased activity by the HSE on asbestos since then has seen the overall number of enforcement notices climb to over 300 under the Control of Asbestos Regulations in 2024-25. Inspection activity is a means of providing assurance that the regulations are effective and that those with duties are complying with them. For example, between September 2022 and March 2025, HSE inspectors have visited over 1,000 schools to inspect their arrangements for managing asbestos. They found good levels of compliance in those 1,000 schools with the responsibilities to manage the risk of asbestos—albeit with 8% requiring enforcement notice action to improve their performance. This is particularly important given, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the proportionately higher number of cases of asbestos-related diseases among retired teachers compared with other professions. So it is right to focus on schools as a particularly pressing issue, along with hospitals and NHS premises, which she also mentioned. In the last year—2024-25—this work was expanded to include inspections of local authority head offices and premises. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) referred to council buildings as being of concern, and he is absolutely right to do so, so current plans for this year—2025-26—include a further 600 visits to schools and local authorities to be completed by March next year.
The HSE is also focused on the management of asbestos in commercial sectors. In 2024-25, its inspections dealt with the management of asbestos more than 2,330 times. Of the buildings found to contain asbestos, 40% required either written advice or an enforcement notice. This was the first year of a multi-year focus on asbestos in commercial sectors.
Together with the guidance on asbestos published on the HSE website, communications campaigns are important in raising awareness and understanding. The Asbestos—Your Duty campaign was launched in January last year to reach those responsible for the maintenance and repair of non-domestic buildings built before 2000 and to raise awareness of the legal duty to manage asbestos. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington made the point that the current arrangements are not always working, and we need to draw people’s attention to their legal responsibilities. That campaign is running alongside the Asbestos & You campaign, which focuses on reducing exposure to asbestos for tradespeople.
Ian Lavery
Can my right hon. Friend say if there are any records of the children who were in the same working environment as a lot of the teachers who, sadly, have passed on? Is it the duty of the inspectorate or a responsibility of a Department to hold records of the children in that working environment who might wait 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years before a little tick of asbestos dust triggers mesothelioma?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. I am not aware of any data about that. From time to time, however, one hears of or comes across people who have succumbed to mesothelioma in their 20s or 30s, and an obvious possibility is that they were exposed at school to the dangerous asbestos that led to that catastrophic outcome.
Both my hon. Friends have pressed the case for asbestos to be removed, and I want us to have a better understanding of the size and scale of the asbestos legacy in the built environment and an evidence base for future strategic decisions on removal. I have been working on this with the HSE since last July. I chaired a roundtable event with stakeholders last October to explore the issue and consider what we need to tackle Britain’s asbestos legacy effectively.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the Work and Pensions Committee made a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a national digital register of all workplace asbestos, bringing together into one accessible place all the separate records maintained—all over the place—by law at the moment. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 already require duty holders either to survey premises constructed before asbestos was banned or assume that it is present. A lot of duty holders commission external consultants to fulfil their obligations under the regulations, and they maintain records on their own databases, so compiling a national register would be a less gargantuan task than may initially be assumed. Establishing a national register would require significant resource from duty holders and the Government, at a time when resources are tight. With the HSE, I am looking at how we can develop better information on asbestos in buildings, and on ways of gathering a robust and reliable dataset to provide the foundation to inform longer-term strategy for the removal of asbestos.
If we cannot at this stage commit to a national register, a one-off asbestos census may be the way to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields suggested. The solution is likely to be a phased approach to improving information on buildings containing asbestos, to help us build an objective and reliable evidence base. A better understanding of the costs and associated impacts for the Government’s own estate—schools, hospitals and so on—would be a good place to start, before considering wider roll out. HSE is considering how best to take that forward in a way that will ensure we can obtain reliable, standardised data.
Alongside that, HSE is supporting digitalisation of built environment data, using building information modelling, or BIM. That approach enables improvements to the identification, recording, sharing and use of information on health and safety risks such as asbestos. The possibility of a surge in asbestos removal, triggered by actions on the part of the Government, needs to be planned for. Asbestos requires specialised waste disposal and removal, in many instances by licensed contractors. We would need to avoid the risk of duty holders removing asbestos without proper controls, and not disposing of it at licensed sites. That would present a significant exposure risk in itself.
In March, I attended part of the HSE’s asbestos research summit, which took place in Manchester. That brought together world-leading experts on asbestos, with duty holders, employer groups and mesothelioma support groups. I am pleased to say Liz Darlison was there. The summit was to inform where we should focus our efforts to ensure we continue to understand the nature of the asbestos exposure risk across the country.
Emma Lewell
I can tell the Minister is coming towards the end of his comments. I know resources are tight but people are dying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) said, at a rate of 5,000 a year. As the Minister knows from the start of my speech, that is happening in my constituency at a faster rate than anywhere else in the country. Could he consider beginning a census in my patch of South Shields so that we can trial it and see how it works?
Sir Stephen Timms
I welcome the opportunity to discuss that proposal with my hon. Friend, to see what we can do. At the research summit, we talked about the need to ensure that everybody involved in the asbestos ecosystem understood their role and the impact their behaviours can have in preventing exposure for themselves and others through their activity at work.
Ian Lavery
I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the Asbestos Victims Support Group’s case against Cape plc, the producer of asbestos, and the claim for £10 million for research and development. If so, does the Minister support the claim?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am aware of that claim, and think there is a strong case. The HSE is working through the suggestions from the research summit to develop a broader programme and will publish the areas of focus for research later in the year. The aim is that that prospectus will shape work in this field for decades to come. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of work under way and a lot more progress still to be made. My hon. Friends are absolutely right to make the case for the goal of an asbestos-free Great Britain and a plan for asbestos to be removed across the country. I am grateful to them and others for continuing to press the case and for their support. I look forward to further discussions with them, and agree that we still need to do a great deal.
Question put and agreed to.