Stephen Timms MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring genuine co-production. Two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed last October. The three of us have recruited a steering group of 12; they are almost entirely disabled people. Our fifth full-day steering group meeting was in Manchester last Thursday. We have issued a call for evidence, which is open until 28 May. We have had over 10,000 responses so far, and I hope we will receive many more. That is just step one in a programme of wider engagement. This is genuine co-production that will deliver.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s consistent interest in this important topic, and he will know that the SEND reforms that have been announced have been well received. Our youth guarantee will apply to young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and the trailblazers that we have set up are trying out new approaches, but I would be delighted to meet him and discuss how we can do this job.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sorry to hear that the system was not properly understood in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. He is absolutely right that there is special treatment for compensation payments of this kind within the universal credit system. I will certainly talk to my officials about ensuring that those arrangements are properly understood in the Department.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I regularly meet the lead Ministers on disability from all Departments, including the Department for Transport; I know that my colleague there is particularly interested in transport accessibility for disabled people. I would be very happy to pick up with them the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right; there is a three-month period to wait after the onset of the incapacity or impairment. Sometimes I think there is a bit of confusion; people think it is three months after the application, but it is not: it is three months after the issue arises. That is to make sure that it is a long-term incapacity; that is what the benefit is there to support. I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about this. Of course, this matter is devolved in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland conventionally keeps in line with England.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we have now started reviewing those 200,000 cases. We anticipate that there will probably be 25,000 people among the 200,000 who could have debts cancelled, or could possibly be refunded. If carer’s allowance has been overpaid and should not have been, we will of course need to recover the money. The problem has been that the previous Government’s guidance in the Department was wrong. We have now corrected that, so I am hopeful that that particular kind of mistake will not occur again.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  There is an urgent need to address the big rise in the number of young people not in work, education or training that took place before the last general election. We think that better support might help young people more than extra cash. Alan Milburn’s review on the NEET problem more broadly will report in September; we will wait until then to decide whether to delay access to the universal credit health element until the age of 22. If we did do that, there would need to be exceptions.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  I point the hon. Gentleman to the Keep Britain Working review, which Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading; it addresses exactly the issue that he rightly raises. We are also looking at reforming Disability Confident, which has huge potential—19,000 employers have signed up, I think. There is a lot of enthusiasm on the part of employers. We want to make sure that those who sign up to the scheme then progress up the levels so that Disability Confident makes a really significant difference. I am very hopeful that it will.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend’s local authority is joining up with Connect to Work, which will be available across the whole of England and Wales by this summer. These regulations are a very important step forward. More needs to be done to give people confidence that moving into work or embarking on volunteering will not trigger a benefit reassessment. I also point him to our Pathways to Work guarantee, giving tailored personalised support to young people in the position that he described, and to the “Keep Britain Working” review by Charlie Mayfield, making employer vacancies accessible to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others in the position that he described.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  The support provided by Access to Work is absolutely vital. There has been a big surge in demand for the scheme over the last few years, which has led to some significant delay. I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has been affected in the way that he described. We said last year that we wanted to reform Access to Work, and that reform is much needed given the greatly increased demand. We are working on proposals and as soon as we are able to put them before the House, we will do so.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  We are determined that disabled people should have the confidence to try work. Our “right to try” legislation will come into force on Thursday. People claiming universal credit, new style employment support allowance and personal independence payment can take steps towards employment and be confident that doing so will not automatically trigger benefit reassessment.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome all Members to the Committee. I am very pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 24 February. The draft regulations are important to keep our post-Brexit chemicals regime robust, proportionate and fit for the long term. They amend three pieces of chemicals legislation that we assimilated from the European Union, putting right things that could not be put right at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available then under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft regulations maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment, making sure that the regulatory system works efficiently for businesses, and supporting economic growth. In combination with the commitment of the Health and Safety Executive to aligning with the European Union’s regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the draft regulations create a framework for adopting EU chemical hazard classifications more quickly in Great Britain. Chemicals stakeholder groups across the board broadly share the wish to stay as aligned with the European Union as possible, to support trade and to maintain the high standards of protection that we share with our closest trading partners, and this statutory instrument reflects those wishes. It is very important that this legislation has been laid now, because the powers provided for in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June, and no other suitable powers are available. The changes being made here are about keeping on the market things that are currently available. New things that are not currently available will still be subject to existing classification and approval requirements, and will be permitted in Great Britain only if the HSE has undertaken an evaluation of them, as is the case at present. There will be a fast track for classification evaluations, but only if the substance has already been subject to classification by a regime that adopts the United Nations globally harmonised system on the same basis as the UK—which means, at present, only the European Union’s. Substances approved elsewhere will not be eligible for fast-tracked evaluation in the UK. The measures strike an important balance, giving more certainty and flexibility, with a more proportionate system for chemicals suppliers and the regulator, while protecting the natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution, protecting people who use and work with hazardous chemical substances, and retaining the benefits of important biocidal products, such as those used to provide clean drinking water. The Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals supply framework is overseen through three regimes. First, there is the Great Britain biocidal products regulation, BPR, which controls the placing on the market and use of biocidal products—disinfectants, insecticides, and so on. Secondly, there is the Great Britain classification, labelling and packaging—CLP—regulation, which provides for the identification and communication of chemical hazards, adopting the UN globally harmonised system of classification and labelling. Thirdly, there is the GB prior informed consent—PIC—regulation, which governs the export and import of some hazardous chemicals. Those regulations were carried over from EU law under the 2023 Act, which enables sensible amendments to keep those regimes operating effectively. The regulations before the Committee apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. In Northern Ireland, EU chemicals legislation continues to apply under the Windsor framework. The chemicals supply framework that we inherited from the European Union provided a high level of protection, but there are some structural and operational problems in applying it in a single country. We used, for example, to share access to the testing resources of all European Union countries; now we just have access to our own. Without these regulations, we would very quickly run into serious problems. Up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would very soon lose approval and have to be removed from the market. Those products include insecticides used to remove disease vectors from aircraft, disinfectants for infection control in hospitals, anti-fouling coatings needed by ships at sea, wood preservatives that protect businesses and homes, and other biocides that are important for public health. There would also be inadequate powers to issue temporary permits for critical products, so that it would no longer be possible for essential products such as aviation fuel preservatives and chemicals used to disinfect public drinking water supplies permitted under those powers to be supplied and used legally. Businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens such as notification requirements that no longer serve any purpose, and the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to prioritise more quickly and flexibly chemical hazard assessments relevant to the Great Britain market would remain limited. At the moment, the HSE has by law to consider EU risk assessment committee classification proposals, including those that are irrelevant to this country. Exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to have to carry out pointless tasks such as obtaining a special reference identification number that customs authorities do not use. I also want to make clear that there would be no corresponding benefits at all to health or to the environment. Taking them one by one, the BRP extends the expiry date for the up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. That will prevent them from lapsing through no fault of the suppliers and will avoid very severe disruption. It also reforms emergency provision so that essential biocidal products such as aviation fuel preservatives and drinking water disinfectants can remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term. Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen between now and June, because then they would become non-available. [ Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786; c. 3WC.] (Correction) The regulation clarifies and extends data protection rules to ensure that businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes. On 9 March, the Government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK-European Union sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement as part of the reset negotiations for the relationship between us and the European Union. We do not know the outcome of those negotiations, but the direction of travel, as the Government have made clear, is that the UK will follow a model of dynamic alignment with the European Union for biocide products. The measures maintain important disease prevention and public health protections while enabling SPS agreement negotiations to conclude and any agreement to be implemented. The changes do not allow the introduction of new biocidal products that have not been evaluated and approved under the rigorous biocides regulatory framework, but rather maintain the availability of existing biocidal active substances and products that are already permitted under the current rules. The changes deliver certainty and continuity, not deregulation. The regulation on classification, labelling and packaging introduces a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved Governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling list—the MCL list—by removing duplicative actions. It removes the obligation to automatically consider all initial EU hazard classification proposals—even those for products that nobody is interested in using in the UK—so that the HSE can prioritise what matters for this country and introduce a bespoke GB work plan, setting out the classification priorities for the HSE over a three-year period. The plan will be subject to annual review and agreed following consultation with the devolved Governments. The regulation will also allow the Health and Safety Executive to respond to changes resulting from later European Union decisions; flexibility that the current regime does not allow. It creates a faster evaluation pathway for adopting EU classification proposals other than in exceptional circumstances. It relocates technical notes to the HSE website so that updates will no longer require legislation, making technical guidance more up-to-date and accessible, and revokes unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data that is no longer needed. The changes simplify regulation and introduce greater flexibility to direct limited resources to hazard classification evaluations that are relevant in Britain. They maintain high standards of protection, and do not in any way change the legal requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of their being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. It will also be possible to legally require the assessment of other types of hazards, such as those in the new EU hazard classes, on a case-by-case basis, until the future legislation is introduced. That allows us to adopt EU measures if we need to and maintain coherent trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The regulation on the export and import of hazardous chemicals removes the redundant requirement for exports of small quantities of chemicals for use in research, analysis or emergency situations from Great Britain to have special reference identification numbers. It harmonises conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests, removing a barrier to legitimate trade. It makes the Health and Safety Executive, as the designated national authority, responsible for reviewing and updating the GB list, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. It also aligns our updates more closely with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving exporters greater clarity on prohibited substances. All those changes will streamline export procedures and maintain our strong commitment to our international obligations. They will not affect the import of chemicals to this country. I want to comment on the situation regarding the UK internal market. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market is important. The more efficient regulatory process and the more timely decision making, which enable alignment with decisions made in the European Union, are expected to have minimal impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK internal market. There may be exceptional circumstances in which a different regulatory decision is made in Great Britain, but the potential impact on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a consideration in making such decisions. Regulatory divergence has been a big concern following EU exit. In December 2024, the Northern Ireland Assembly applied to trigger the Stormont brake to ask the UK Government to prevent the application of new measures adopted into EU classification, labelling and packaging legislation. It was decided that the conditions for application of the brake were not met, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has committed to addressing the impact of regulatory divergence and to consider how to apply a consistent classification, labelling and packaging regime across the United Kingdom. The powers in the 2023 Act, to which I have referred a couple of times, have not permitted us to make changes to introduce a consistent regime for classification, labelling and packaging now, in this statutory instrument. However, the HSE has committed to further work, throughout this year and next, on how to make updates to deliver a consistent classification and labelling regime in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within the UK internal market, using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  No, we are only aligning with the very highest standards worldwide. The question is: what is the framework for that? We are adopting the UN framework, and we think that is the right one. There is still a question about what the EU will do in relation to the UN classification, but I would be very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend. It is not the case that, as she was concerned about, we might permit some things because it is a good idea on industrial production grounds, even if it is not a good idea in terms of human health, animal health or the environment. We are maintaining in these regulations—and indeed in future regulations in this area we are determined to maintain—the very highest standards of protection for human health and for the environment. There is no weakening there at all. On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should be aligning more closely, as I have indicated, it is our view that our chemicals regulatory arrangements should be aligned with EU arrangements in the future. This instrument is a step in that direction. There will no doubt need to be further debate and discussion once the current negotiations are concluded, but it is interesting to me that across the whole spectrum, from those whose primary focus is on maintaining human health and safety and the environment to those who are concerned about how much we can export from the UK and how much we can manufacture here and sell elsewhere, pretty much everybody agrees that we should be very closely aligned with the EU. There are, as I said earlier, some areas where, given that we have quite constrained testing resources, we do not want to be required to test every product that is tested in Europe, if it is a product that is of no use or interest in the UK. There will therefore be instances in which our arrangements are not absolutely identical to the EU arrangements, but we want to align for very good commercial and also environmental and health reasons. The regulations that the Committee is considering are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health; they reduce unnecessary burdens on business while keeping protections in place; they enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter to Great Britain; they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of the chemicals regulatory system; they maintain the protection to human health, animal health and the environment; and they make the regulatory process more efficient by delivering a proportionate regulatory environment aligned with the country’s needs. I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June. [ Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786; c. 3WC.] (Correction) However, science is developing our understanding of the impacts of these substances on the environment and our health, and there may be a case to make about some of them. As I said, I do not have the information for the 173, but it would not surprise me if there were significant calls for some of them to be considered for removal. The point is that we do not want that to happen by accident because we did not have the powers to enable them to continue being used. In terms of the exports that we are addressing in the third of these measures, the UK is a very responsible supplier, and those who supply from the UK are well regulated and behave conscientiously. As I set out earlier, the SI makes sure that if something is ordered to be exported from the UK, and there is no problem with it and there is no response when one has been requested from authorities, the export can continue. That is if there is no response. Clearly, if the response is, “No, this is not approved here”, or something similar, that product would not be supplied. We just want to ensure that what could be an impediment to legitimate trade is not imposed. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) has had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, given her a long-standing interest in this area. I did not catch all six of the questions, so perhaps she and I should correspond separately about some of them. She asked why all six new EU classes are not covered here. The question is what will happen at UN level, because our commitment is to align properly with the UN globally harmonised system. There is a question about how the six EU classes will relate to the UN system, and I do not think that we quite know the answer yet. Perhaps I can send my hon. Friend a fuller response on that point.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Committee’s support for this statutory instrument. I will have a go at answering the questions raised. Is there a possibility that any of these 173 substances will be banned at some point? Did I understand that correctly?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Carer’s Allowance Overpayments · Hansard source

  More

  Let me come to that point in a moment. I saw the article that my hon. Friend refers to. It is an important point, and I will address it in a couple of minutes. My hon. Friends have quite rightly raised questions about accountability for the review’s delivery. We have appointed a senior responsible officer, and we have committed to update both the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on progress every six months. The review highlighted the need for clearer guidance and better communication with carers, particularly on earnings averaging, overpayments and reporting responsibilities, so we have revised the decision letters so that carers are clearer on how their earnings have been averaged and on exactly what changes they need to report and when. We have also redesigned the overpayment communications to be clearer and to show more empathy, I hope, than was shown in communications previously. We have strengthened the signposting to independent advice and debt support, including to charities and free money guidance, and we have made it clearer how carers can ask questions, challenge decisions or agree affordable repayment plans. We are continuing to test and develop the letters and the guidance, and there has been recent user research to assess clarity, understanding and impact. We are planning further improvements. I want to express my appreciation for the carers organisations, particularly Carers UK and the Carers Trust, that we have been working with. They have put a good deal of work into this, together with the Department, to try to ensure we get these communications right. I hope that is going to be a significant improvement. The Sayce review pointed to the lack of awareness and take-up of carers’ national insurance credits. We want to make sure that carers understand what they are entitled to, so we have been reviewing our letters and guidance to increase awareness. The review recommended reducing the impact of the earnings cliff edge while longer-term reform is developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quite rightly pointed out, if someone is a penny over the earnings limit, they are not entitled to any carer’s allowance; that has been the case ever since 1976. We have commissioned research on the impact of the higher earnings limit, which is now being regularly updated, unlike in the past, and commissioned behavioural research to inform future policy decisions, including changes to regulations, short-term mitigations and longer-term reform, including a taper. In the end, I think that will be the answer: instead of an earnings cliff edge or cut-off limit, there should be an arrangement so that the carer’s allowance reduces in a tapered way. It will take some time to develop that and put the IT in place and so on, so we are looking at what we can do in the meantime. As my hon. Friend touched on, the review recommended better join-up between carer’s allowance, universal credit and other benefits. We are aware that a considerable burden is placed on carers, requiring them to resolve offsetting issues themselves. We have accepted Liz Sayce’s recommendation, and we will put in place an automated solution. While we develop that—again, that will take a while—we will put in place a manual workaround. The review recommended tackling backlogs and identifying overpayments earlier. We have reduced the backlog of automated earnings notifications from HMRC. We now process those alerts much faster, allowing issues to be identified more quickly—another point raised by my hon. Friend. In future, we want to follow up on all those alerts, not just about half of them as we did in the past, so that we can draw people’s attention to problems as they arise. Taken together, those actions are about listening to carers, fixing what went wrong, supporting people better and modernising carer’s allowance in the future. In response to the review’s recommendations on faulty averaging guidance, we will reassess carer’s allowance cases that might have been affected. A number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, have raised the question of why we did not pause all carer’s allowance earnings overpayments action pending the review’s outcome. My answer is that we have been clear about our approach all along: we have to balance fairness for carers with our duty to taxpayers. If money has been paid out incorrectly, it needs to be recovered. We have retained that position as the review was under way. In most cases, the Department already holds enough information to carry out the reassessment, and affected carers will not need to take action unless the DWP asks for additional details. For older overpayment cases, dating back to 2015 or perhaps a few years after that, the DWP may no longer hold the relevant data and information: we are required to retain data only as long as it is needed for the purpose for which it was collected. The Department will open a simple online form to allow people to submit the relevant information. We are aiming to do that in November this year. The Department will work closely with organisations supporting carers who think they may have been affected to register for reassessment on gov.uk. Everybody whose case is reviewed will be notified of the outcome, including whether their overpayment has been confirmed or changed. Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is, or might be, involved in the reassessment exercise will be available, at no cost, from the Department or trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust—I thank them again. Hon. Members have asked how progress will be tracked. The reassessment exercise is part of our broader response to the independent review and, as I have said, we have committed to updating the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on our progress every six months. Those updates will include statistics on progress, and they will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. We will also put some information in our annual report and accounts. Rebuilding trust requires honesty, accountability and action, and that is the approach we have aimed to take throughout this process. We have to fix the problems and correct the mistakes; the work of unpaid carers is too important and too valuable not to do so. More broadly, we want to improve and modernise carer’s allowance to make it easier for unpaid carers to combine their caring responsibilities with paid work where they are able to, and better reward them for doing so. We will also ensure that those receiving carer’s allowance and universal credit receive a more joined-up service than they have in the past. We owe that to those who provide such a vital service to our fellow citizens. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the all-party parliamentary group and the Committees represented in the debate will scrutinise how we deliver on those aims very closely. They are absolutely right to do so. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10( 6 )).

• 14 Apr 2026 · Carer’s Allowance Overpayments · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come on to that, because there is some progress in that area. As my hon. Friend said, having made the change to the earnings limit, we commissioned the independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK and a well-respected and widely recognised expert in disability benefits. Her review was published in November and, in my view, she did a brilliant job. She really got to grips with what had gone wrong, and I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to her. The report found that many carers had faced unexpected debts because of errors in the way that the DWP had applied averaging rules on fluctuating earnings. The guidance used by DWP staff since 2015 had not properly reflected the law, which permits averaging over a period when assessing whether earnings are above or below the earnings limit. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned of somebody who was receiving income once every six months is a clear example of the problem. I do not know what the figures were in that case, but it may well be that if Helen’s earnings had been averaged over six months instead of being taken into account in one month, they would have been below the limit. That is exactly the sort of instance that we will examine in the reassessment exercise, which I will say more about in a moment. We accepted 38 of Liz Sayce’s 40 recommendations in full or in part, and we have already made progress on more than half of them. I will set out those recommendations and what we have done in response, and I will pick up on a couple of my hon. Friend’s questions. The review recommended putting right historical overpayments caused by flawed guidance on the averaging of earnings. I am pleased to say that new and correct guidance has now been in place since the start of September 2025, but it was wrong from 2015 for 10 years. We are now delivering the reassessment exercise that Liz Sayce recommended: reclassifying affected overpayments as “not recoverable”, refunding carers where appropriate, and applying a fair approach where records are no longer held by the Department. The reassessment exercise began yesterday, so this debate is particularly well timed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured it. As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set aside £75 million of funding for refunds under the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a three-year period; we are hoping we can complete the exercise in two, but just to be sure, we have allowed three years to ensure we can complete it properly. We are expecting to review more than 200,000 cases, so it is a major undertaking. As she said, we estimate that we will be reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for perhaps some 25,000 carers in the course of the exercise.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Carer’s Allowance Overpayments · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this extremely timely debate, which is a welcome opportunity to set out some of the work that the Government have been doing in response to the concerns that she has raised. She is a very strong advocate for unpaid carers; she was before entering Parliament, as she said, and she is now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I echo her remarks about the significance of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of carer’s allowance by Harold Wilson’s Government. It is right to mark and celebrate that. My hon. Friend has spoken previously of how her mother cared for her grandmother for nearly 30 years. I think all of us can grasp how important and valuable the heroic scale of the contribution made by unpaid carers is, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) is right to draw our attention to the economic value of that contribution. The contributions of unpaid carers are vital to the family members, friends and neighbours they look after, but also to our communities, our country and our economy. We inherited a dreadful situation in which some very busy, hard-pressed carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with large, unexpected debts due to alleged overpayments of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a particularly clear example of the problem that arose, and I will comment on it a moment. The Work and Pensions Committee, among others, including the Public Accounts Committee, looked at this problem when I was the Chair, and I am pleased to now be a part of a Government who are able and willing to do something about it. We made a very early move after we were elected—I think that it was in the first Budget after the general election—to increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit, as my hon. Friend said, to match 16 hours of work at national living wage levels. As my hon. Friend said, that change from April 2025 resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit. It means that more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30, but it is also important to note, particularly in the context we are discussing, that the chance of inadvertently slipping above the earnings limit is greatly reduced, because the limit will keep track with increases in the national living wage in the future. As my hon. Friend said, the earnings limit rose again to £204 per week from the beginning of this month. People had a real problem in the past when the national living wage was increased, because their earnings that had been below the earnings limit went above it, and there was nothing to alert them to that; they had to monitor it themselves. Quite a lot of people were tipped inadvertently above the earnings limit, leading to an overpayment of carer’s allowance. I am very confident that the change we have made to keep the earnings limit in line with the national living wage will be a big step forward in reducing the incidence of overpayments in the future.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do agree. As my hon. Friend will know, we have set up a review of personal independence payment, which is under way at the moment. We have a steering group of 12 individuals, almost all of whom are disabled people, plus me and two other co-chairs, and we had our third full-day, in-person meeting last week. The issues that my hon. Friend raises are exactly the ones that we want to work through in the course of the review, which will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. She might know of the Connect to Work service we have introduced, which will be available across the whole country by summer. The methodology for it has been designed centrally, but it is being commissioned entirely locally. The feedback we are seeing so far is that it is doing a very good job in supporting people in exactly the kind of circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The new disability advisory panel—chaired by Zara Todd, whom the hon. Gentleman may know—will be working with us on reform of Access to Work. We have increased the number of staff working on this from 500 to 650 in the past couple of years, which is reducing some of the delays that we saw as a result of the big surge in applications. I would be glad to keep the hon. Gentleman posted on further progress, including our proposals for reform, which we will bring forward as soon as we are able to do so.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would drop me a line about that case so that I can look into what has happened.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There is a serious problem with Access to Work delays—on 16 February, the application backlog was 66,699—which is why we have substantially increased the number of staff working on it. Those who have a job in the offing are prioritised for applications. If the hon. Member would like to drop me a line about the particular case he has in mind, I will gladly look into it.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter. It is fair to say that the PIP application process is old-fashioned, clunky and difficult for many. I mentioned earlier the review of PIP that is being undertaken. Members of the steering group have described applying for PIP as “dehumanising”. The health transformation programme is under way, and we are improving the process, including by making claims fully online in a trial number of postcode areas. I hope that a broadly much better approach will come out of the review.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Work Capability Assessments · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady’s hon. Friend, the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) raised this important concern in a Westminster Hall debate last week. A backlog of reassessments for the work capability assessment did build up during 2024. I am pleased to say that that backlog will have been almost entirely cleared by the end of this month.