From April 2017, new employment support allowance claimants in the work-related activity group will receive £29.05 less than current ESA WRAG claimants due to a cut legislated by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. The Government promised additional funding for support to help claimants return to work but has not delivered on this promise.

The hon. Gentleman's motion is supported, and he recalls that the Conservative party manifesto aimed to halve the disability employment gap by 2020, a target which has been abandoned.

Mr. Grey expresses his concern over the Government's plan to cut ESA WRAG payments, stating that it will create a two-tier system of disability support based on application dates. He argues for pausing these cuts until the new work and health programme is fully implemented. Mr. Grey emphasises the importance of financial support for disabled individuals' ability to find employment and highlights the potential negative impact of reduced ESA WRAG payments on people's health and emotional well-being.

Mr. Murray congratulates Mr. Grey on securing the debate and acknowledges that most disabled individuals in his constituency are eager to work if they can. He asks Mr. Grey to consider persuading the Scottish Government to use its welfare powers to replace ESA for disabled people, similar to how it has handled the bedroom tax issue.

I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman as ESA has not been devolved to Scotland. There is concern among Conservatives that the Government can change their mind, leaving them open to legal challenge from Parkinson's UK regarding statutory obligations. I urge the government to reflect on whether people like John will benefit without a replacement support system and listen to disability charities before pausing these cuts.

I am grateful for this debate, which covers four criteria: supporting people in times of need, providing assistance to move forward, ensuring work pays, and affordability. The current welfare system is complex but the Government should be commended for reforms like the national living wage. However, changes must meet these criteria. Concerns include lack of proper research, impact assessments, and support for vulnerable groups like those with fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson's and MS. I am concerned about roll-out issues in my constituency.

Asked if the universal credit in Peter Aldous' constituency is the full version or just for single claimants, to which he responded that it is the full version being rolled out at the moment.

There is early evidence showing that those on universal credit are 13% more likely to go into work and receive in-work support, benefiting residents in my hon. Friend's area despite initial roll-out issues.

The latest employment figures show that unemployment in my constituency is twice the national average, but as we know, this forms only a small part of the problem. Both this Government and their predecessor have systematically targeted the most vulnerable in our society. Our welfare state has become a game of numbers and a debate about the bottom line, and once again Members of this House find themselves debating cuts to the incomes of those who can least afford it. For the vast majority of the 693 of my constituents claiming it, universal credit has been nothing short of a punitive disaster. As we sit here today, we all know of constituents across the country who struggle to choose between heating and eating, and where actually living takes second preference to just surviving. This Government’s answer to that is to take another £30 from those who most need it, many of whom suffer from often debilitating disabilities. Gateshead has rising unemployment and rising under-employment. A lot of my constituents who are lucky enough to be in work are often working many fewer hours than they would like to, with little or no job security. I would like to focus on one individual who really highlights the extent to which the safety net of social security has become a trap. Simon Westlake is a young lad who, because of family issues, moved to Gateshead from London, not very far from this place. He had a job working at a local supermarket, paying his way, renting a flat in Gateshead and contributing to the local community. Unfortunately, he was made redundant in February 2016. Universal credit has been operating in Gateshead for about 18 months, so Simon reported to the local jobcentre—which has since been closed by the DWP despite an increase in those needing to use its services—to apply for universal credit.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Grey) for introducing this debate and for assembling here a large number of right hon. and hon. Members. My father became disabled when I was two weeks old, when he was 34. He worked for the rest of his working life until he was 65. It was only after he died that I found that at one point he had had to consider emigrating to Australia in order to get work, but thanks to the foresightedness of a church in Highbury in Islington—he was a vicar—he was able to work in the United Kingdom. Throughout my childhood, as we were growing up, we saw the gradual improvement of the situation for disabled people in this country. I pay tribute to Governments of all colours over the past 50 years for that, because it has been incredibly important. I saw, for instance, the significant improvement that Motability made to his life and his ability to do his work—he benefited from the scheme from its introduction. That is why I believe that the motion should be supported and that the cuts to the work-related component in both ESA and universal credit should be paused and reconsidered.

The hon. Gentleman will recall the commitment that was made to increase support for disabled people to get into work as a quid pro quo for the benefit cut. Does he agree, however, that it appears that the Government now propose to spend less on employment support for disabled people than has been spent on the failed Work programme? Surely they should be spending more, not less.

I am not clear on the figures, but what I do know is that the Government are committed to providing support to people to get into work. That is absolutely vital, but I do not think it is a substitute for the additional financial help that has been given until now. I welcome the Green Paper and the Government’s work on it. The excellent paper covers joint supporting, the promotion of mental and physical health, and occupational health support. I want all those things to be put in place, because I know that they will be of great benefit to many of my constituents. The Green Paper does not, however, cover the question of costs, and that is why I support the motion. Let us see them work: let us see people get into work more quickly before we actually remove the additional support. Let us also consider maintaining an element of support above JSA, specifically to cover the particular costs that people face, especially if they have been on the standard rate of ESA, as they will have been for a short period.

Concentrates on the unfair implementation of welfare cuts and their counterproductive nature. Emphasises that those in receipt of Employment Support Allowance (ESA), particularly in the Work-Related Activity Group, are often unable to work due to poor health. Argues that cutting £29 a week from ESA recipients is harmful as it removes crucial support for individuals who have little chance of increasing their income and minimal prospects for employment. Cites Scope's argument that these cuts will push people further from the workforce rather than helping them move into jobs.

Defends the Government’s approach to welfare reform, highlighting measures such as the introduction of the national living wage and increases in the personal allowance. Points out that economic growth has led to record employment figures and a rise in disabled people entering work over the past three years.

Questions Justin Tomlinson about the abandonment of his predecessor’s pledge to halve the disability employment gap by 2020. Expresses dismay at this change, believing it was a serious commitment.

Supports Justin Tomlinson's suggestion for setting dual targets: to halve the disability employment gap by 2020 and set numerical targets for disabled employment. Proposes this as a more precise measurement.

Critiques Justin Tomlinson's claims about rising incomes, citing predictions of a 10% fall in real incomes over the next three years due to inflation caused by sterling’s collapse.

Questions the effectiveness and compassion of the Department's approach towards welfare claimants, particularly those who have faced destitution without receiving backdated payments. Sees this as a cost-cutting exercise rather than a solution.

Does not recognise the debate as a cost-cutting exercise but finds it difficult to comment without all details. He supports the introduction of disability employment advisers and specialist work coaches, emphasising personalised support for disabled people. The Green Paper will address several issues including mental health assessments, job clubs run by peers with disabilities, increased access to work for young people with mental health conditions, and a small employer offer programme.

Agrees that charities are welcoming the new Green Paper but points out that they still maintain a consistent voice in saying that cuts to ESA WRAG are wrong and not replaced by the Green Paper.

Expresses deep concern about the cuts, highlighting several misconceptions leading to cruel and perverse outcomes. Welcomes proposed additional measures of support such as specialist work coaches but regrets the reduction in disability employment advisers. Emphasises that cutting financial support does not incentivise disabled people towards work and can make it harder for them to afford training or volunteering opportunities. Points out that those moving from ESA WRAG into the support group will face different treatment, underlining the need for additional financial support.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission offered a substantial and detailed methodology for the assessment, which the Government's analysis was found to be unsupported by evidence. The Green Paper proposes some welcome measures but lacks clarity on when these goals will be achieved. The proposed benefit cuts are unjustified and undermine efforts to reduce the disability employment gap.

Acknowledges regret over previous votes supporting ESA changes due to lack of promised support measures. Emphasises that a pause on the proposed cuts would not harm the Government's plans and is both sensible and moral. Proposes alternative options like a boosted support fund or higher work allowances in universal credit to provide flexible financial support for claimants.

Supports the notion that Members on both sides agreed to ESA changes based on promises of parallel support measures. Urges delaying the ESA changes until appropriate alternative support is in place.

Hon. Members should reflect on the impact of welfare reforms, particularly clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which were originally opposed by several MPs from both sides. The welfare cap has led to more cuts and harm, as even former Secretary Duncan Smith recognised. Today is an opportunity to pause before implementing further cuts in light of new Ministers in different Departments who may not be bound by previous commitments. It's crucial that the Government does not use legislative consent motions passed by other parties as a reason for proceeding with these changes. The Minister should listen to concerns about immediate hardships caused by welfare reforms and consider altering course to address long-term impacts positively.

Burrowes commends the constructive tone of the debate and criticises politicisation. He supports the reform of disability welfare but acknowledges the bravery required to address a system where only 1% of those affected could get into work. He mentions the disproportionate costs faced by disabled people and highlights the importance of reassurance for claimants. Burrowes notes recent positive developments like employment statistics showing an increase in disabled workers, though he stresses that there is still much more to do. He supports the vision outlined in the Green Paper but calls for practical integration of health and welfare support systems and asks for assurances regarding financial support such as the £30 cut. He emphasises the need to close the credibility gap by demonstrating real care through local discretion.

The state cannot afford to give less than 1% of its citizens £30 a week, as it makes a significant difference for those claiming ESA. The argument that the extra payment would create a disincentive for employment is flawed given the greater needs of ESA claimants compared to JSA claimants. Many ESA recipients face higher living costs due to their conditions and use the money for medical supplies not available on the NHS. A cut will exacerbate mental health issues, discouraging people from entering the job market. The debate reflects a collective plea for reconsideration, urging the Government to press pause until after April 2017 to consider improvements based on the Green Paper.

Welcomes the debate's tone and calls for reassurances regarding existing claimants and those on reassessment. Emphasises the importance of moving people into work, which brings identity, purpose, and connection, but highlights that only 1% of claimants are doing so as a sign of system failure. Supports proposals to pause implementation changes while welcoming new schemes like abolishing permitted work rules and additional funding for access to work. Encourages contributions to the Green Paper for continued progress in supporting disabled individuals into employment.

Agrees with other Conservative Members that the cuts to ESA should be paused. Points out that practical support for ESA claimants will not be in place by next April as promised. The government's new programme is spending less than was previously spent on similar initiatives, which contradicts their promise of additional resources. Emphasises that there has been no progress since 2010 when the Work programme replaced the New Deal, highlighting the failure of the current approach. Notes the Conservative manifesto commitment to halve the disability employment gap by 2020 but criticises the government for not setting a clear end date or providing necessary resources.

Welcomes progress in reducing the disability employment gap but regrets that it falls short of the previous Prime Minister's commitment to halve the gap by 2020. Emphasises that proposed cuts to ESA will be detrimental, as they reduce sick and disabled people’s financial support before the work and health programme can be implemented, which is counterproductive given the long-term nature of disabilities. Criticises the Government for pushing disabled individuals further away from employment despite their aim of supporting them.

Responds to Patricia Gibson's speech by welcoming the government’s commitment to reassess work capability assessments to ensure people are placed in the correct support group. This response suggests a willingness to address the concerns raised about fluctuating conditions and accurate assessment.

If any part of the social security system needs a fresh look, that would be my first choice... People are likely to be deterred from trying out new jobs if the possible outcome is reduced benefit after a short period of employment. Protecting the sick and disabled should be above budget savings. I urge the Government to use next week’s autumn statement to pause these cuts until appropriate alternative measures have been fully considered, and to do all that they can to secure support for current and future claimants.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on initiating the debate... The proposed cuts in social security offices in Northern Ireland will lead to their closure, and in my constituency that will remove access from the most vulnerable people... As we approach the week of the autumn statement, I urge the Chancellor to rethink these potential cuts and to reflect on the cross-party nature of the motion.

It is disheartening that the debate on cuts to ESA for disabled people is necessary in 2016. The UK Government's welfare reform programme disproportionately impacts those living with disabilities and sicknesses, without evidence of positive impact on employment. There are 'grave and systematic violations' of disabled people’s rights under these reforms according to a UN inquiry. MPs have repeatedly opposed the ESA cuts, but the government has not listened. The extra £30 a week for ESA recipients is essential and should remain for the additional costs associated with their condition. Ministers must read the report and act. I urge the Government to champion social mobility rather than contribute to isolation and stagnation.

Rees underscores the historical importance of the welfare state and criticises the Conservative Government's austerity measures as undermining social security. She highlights research indicating that proposed cuts to universal credit will leave 2.5 million working families £2,100 worse off on average by 2021. Rees also points out a significant impact on children being pushed into poverty due to tax and benefit reforms.

Kerevan commends the cross-party approach in securing the debate and suggests delaying the implementation of cuts to ESA's work-related activity component until after the Green Paper consultations are concluded. He argues that changing the system now would complicate future adjustments.

Burrowes expresses optimism and hopes for further announcements before April that could address the issues raised in the debate without needing to pause implementation of planned changes. He suggests that recent initiatives on mental health and homeless jobseekers indicate a positive direction.

Kerevan reiterates his concern over the growing number of disabled individuals in the workforce, particularly those with mental health issues. He calls for a long-term solution that supports this strategic group in transitioning back to work permanently.

Tomlinson acknowledges the high prevalence of mental health conditions among ESA recipients and the increasing recognition of disabilities, which contributes to higher numbers. He also notes that an ageing population accounts for 81% of disabilities.

I agree with the earlier speech on mental health issues. The ESA work-related activity component should not be tinkered with until a permanent solution is agreed upon. Full-service roll-out of universal credit in my constituency has had computer problems and citizen advice bureaux are overwhelmed, so changes to ESA WRAG would create a two-tier system that is not working well. Any reduction in ESA WRAG will not effectively get more disabled people into the labour market as employers need to be prepared. I urge the Minister to reconsider these cuts ahead of the autumn statement.

Declaring interest from my previous work in learning disability services, I assert that DWP assessments are inadequate and fail people with mental health issues and disabilities. Cuts to disabled benefits are unacceptable, exacerbating poverty and leaving many depressed. There is no evidence to suggest reduced ESA WRAG encourages employment; employers’ attitudes and a lack of understanding are greater barriers. Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed, highlighting the importance of supports for adaptation and job opportunities. I urge MPs to encourage inclusive hiring practices and support small businesses that provide such jobs.

ESA is complex with many aspects; my office has a full-time staff member dedicated to benefits issues, highlighting the strain on our resources. Constituency days involve handling these problems and administrative staff also take queries, indicating how much time we spend helping people navigate ESA issues.

Echoing Jim Shannon's point about full-time caseworkers dealing with ESA issues, the caseworker in my office is passionate and under strain. We must acknowledge their dedication to helping constituents navigate these complex benefits.

Expresses concern over the reduction of £29.05 a week for new ESA claimants moving to Universal Credit and criticises the government's expectation that disabled people can find four to five hours of work per week to recoup their loss. Highlights issues with mental health, particularly in Northern Ireland due to its conflict history. Welcomes the DWP decision to stop renewals of ESA for long-term sick individuals but argues against the financial incentives and lack of support for those in WRAG (Work-Related Activity Group). Calls for better training and understanding from Jobcentre staff regarding disabilities.

The debate is timely given the upcoming autumn statement, with Members from nine parties supporting the motion. The speaker criticises cuts to ESA for sick and disabled people in the work-related activity group by nearly £30 a week and to the limited capability for work component of universal credit. She highlights that these cuts will cause hardship and distress, particularly when employment support systems have failed so far. The Government's Green Paper on disability employment is welcomed but must be followed with action. Poverty exacerbates illness, hindering recovery and securing sustainable employment; thus, necessary financial support should not be removed from sick and disabled people assessed as unfit for work. She urges the government to recognise this and engage constructively with MPs and stakeholders.

Responds to Eilidh Whiteford, questioning whether the Scottish Government would use their powers to mitigate the impact of cuts to ESA and universal credit. She highlights that the previous mitigation of the bedroom tax demonstrates potential for intervention.

Clarifies her stance, noting that Scottish Government interventions on reserved benefits come at a cost from devolved budgets. She urges Labour MPs to work constructively against austerity measures affecting disabled people. Emphasises the importance of ESA as long-term support for sick and disabled individuals, unlike jobseekers’ allowance which is short-term. Debates the impact of cuts on energy costs and debt among those on low incomes. Discusses how these cuts undermine employment sustainability and discourage work due to financial disincentives. Calls for comprehensive measures from the Government post-Green Paper publication.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on calling this timely debate. The fact that he has such a degree of support from across the House cannot be overestimated. We are concerned about the plight that so many of our constituents are facing and the impact that this additional cut in support will have on them. Although my party wants the ESA WRAG cuts to be scrapped completely, we will support this motion calling for a postponement until the Government have been able to analyse the consultation from their Green Paper. The key element is that we have only just had the closing date of the Green Paper consultation. Labour Members are concerned that the Government do not seem to recognise the link between disability and poverty. Eighty per cent of that poverty results from the condition or disability that they experience. This is happening in the context of what disabled people are already going through; it is not just about social security cuts. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 cut £28 billion from 3.7 million disabled people, and that does not even include the cuts in social care and other health-related public services. I again remind the Minister that the Government’s own data show how vulnerable people in the group are. They are twice as likely to die as the population as a whole. That proves that incapacity benefit and ESA are good population health indicators. We hear awful language about shirkers and scroungers, but these are sick people who deserve care and support, not humiliation. The Access to Work programme is inadequate: it serves only 35,000 of the 1.4 million disabled people who are fit and able to work. It is nonsense.

This morning I received an email from a constituent who has lost his ESA and has been put on the assessment rate. He suffers from lymphedema, an extremely painful condition that makes him almost unable to walk. He asked what advice I could give him, because the rate that he is now on means that he has to choose on a weekly basis between turning on the heat and eating.

I have a constituent with exactly the same condition, and we are going through exactly the same process with the personal independence payment as well as ESA. It is important that my hon. Friend will be representing her constituent. Sixty per cent of people are successful in the appeals process. That shows how flawed the system is, does it not? These are people who have been found not fit for work. There is absolutely no evidence that the cut will incentivise people. In fact, the Government’s own research and the Low report say that it is less likely to help disabled people back into work. Members across the House will have similar examples. I also want to reflect on growing evidence of the effects that the current round of cuts are already having on sick and disabled people. They include isolation, loss of independence, reliance on food banks, homelessness, exacerbation of existing conditions and a direct link to mental health issues. It is absolutely unacceptable for policies of the state to be doing such harm.

Congratulates the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on securing the debate, acknowledges the tone of the debate, emphasises that good policy must consider practical delivery and personal impact, stresses the need to ensure people's liquidity when facing increased costs or employment challenges, highlights the importance of personalised support, mentions use of funds through flexible support fund to alleviate work-related costs, extends hardship fund for new groups with immediate effect, offers budgeting support for those transferring to universal credit, reassures existing claimants about temporary leave from benefits and WRAG changes in April next year.

Asks the Minister to clarify whether the £100 million funding proposed for employment support is additional to or a replacement of current Work programme funding, highlights Labour's previous success in this area under different economic conditions.

Asks the Minister a question during the debate but the content of her position is not provided in the transcript.

Gratefully accepts the Minister's response and asks for reassurance on whether hardship fund and other support will fully compensate new claimants for loss of WRAG payments.

Ms Mordaunt stated that despite the need to progress work on the Green Paper, there is no intention of pausing proposed support set to begin in April. She assured the House that current efforts will meet necessary needs and invited all Members to help deliver on ambitions outlined in the Green Paper.

Mr Grey expressed gratitude towards those who participated in the debate, noting support from both sides of the House for pressing pause on cuts. He highlighted that more than 20 Back-Bench speakers supported the premise of the motion and called for the Government to reconsider their stance until a new form of disability employment support is considered and implemented.