With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Timms review of the personal independence payment—to make it fair and fit for the future, both for the disabled people who need it and for the taxpayer. Today, the Government are publishing an interim report on behalf of the review’s steering group. Copies will be placed in the Library in both Houses. We are committed to openness and transparency, so it sets out the evidence gathered so far and the emerging themes. It will inform the recommendations that will now be developed for the final report, which is to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn. PIP was introduced more than a decade ago, but the benefit has never been fully reviewed. Since 2013, the number of people reporting a disability has increased significantly; patterns of disability and ill health have changed; and the workplace and wider society have evolved. We have seen a sharp rise in disability and long-term health conditions, including in mental ill health among younger people. The number of people receiving PIP has risen considerably and is forecast to continue growing. Against that backdrop, we are taking a fresh look at whether a system introduced 13 years ago still reflects the realities of modern life, supports independent living and is sustainable for the long term. The Timms review is the first time that the UK Government have co-produced reforms on this scale. Our aim has been to have a review that is not just about disabled people, but shaped with disabled people. That means working together with disabled people and drawing on their lived experience. The review is led by three co-chairs—me, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson—and a steering group of 12 people we have recruited, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health. The group represents a range of impairments, as well as different parts of the country. No single group can represent the full range of experiences of disability, however, so we have set up a wide programme of engagement of varied, accessible opportunities in which people with differing lived and learned experiences can get involved. The interim report brings together the evidence we have heard so far. It includes a summary of findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses, and an evidence pack provided by my Department to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering. It is the strongest evidence base ever assembled on PIP, on the assessment process and on the experiences of those who rely on the payment. The interim report presents a clear message from the steering group: PIP is hugely valued for managing the additional costs of disability, but its current design and delivery are no longer fit for purpose. The assessment for PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising, and over 90% of those responding to the call for evidence reported that their experience of the PIP assessment was negative. PIP provides a lifeline for many, but the fear of losing it on reassessment can create serious barriers to participation in work, community life and other everyday activities. That is the direct opposite of the intention, which has always been to support independence and participation. The report also highlights that the benefit has not kept up with wider changes since PIP was introduced. This work will sit alongside the Milburn review into young people and work, which is looking at the factors behind rising economic inactivity among young people and how the Government can better support participation, opportunity and independence. The interim report sets out the next steps for the review. It outlines the evidence and engagement programme over the coming months, and how the review will test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in experience. We are not looking for quick fixes here. Reform needs to be guided by the evidence, if we are to address the underlying problems in the system and deliver lasting change. The Government are committed to a fairer system that has the trust of both the public and the people who rely on it. We have introduced the recording of health assessments by default, and we are substantially increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments to 30%, which reverses the sharp decline under the previous Government and helps to improve trust, accuracy and confidence in the assessments. Our objective is to reform the system so that it works better for disabled people, while ensuring that it is sustainable for the long term, and that the support will be there for future generations who need it. The review has been tasked with developing recommendations that can be delivered within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for future PIP spending. I thank everybody who has contributed time, evidence and expertise so far. I thank the steering group, including my fellow co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, for their support, commitment and determination. Crucially, I also thank the very large number of disabled people who have shared their experiences to help shape this work. The Government are committed to helping to remove the unnecessary barriers that disabled people too often face. This groundbreaking review is only part of that work, but it is an important part. We want to support disabled people in playing as full a part in society as possible. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence. Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic. Last summer, the Government brought forward proposals for £5 billion of welfare savings, but 126 of their own Members rebelled, and within days, Ministers had abandoned the lot. The Timms review is a fig leaf draped over that failure—a review commissioned not to fix the system, but to get the Government through a difficult week. A year on, what do we have? An interim report. Not a decision, not a reform, but a report about a report, with a promise of full findings in the autumn, and perhaps legislation at some later stage. Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants. The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming. That is why, last month, we launched the Conservative party’s review of disability and sickness benefits. It is a root-and-branch review of a failing system that will look into who should get help, how they should be assessed, what form that help should take, the conditionality of support and how to control the level of overall spending. It asks a much more fundamental set of questions than this review. It sets out to make savings, as well as to build a better system. The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone. We believe that people with milder health conditions are better served by treatment and support to get them into work than by being signed off for a lifetime on welfare. We would restrict access to sickness and disability benefits for those without a long-term connection to this country. We would bring the welfare bill down, because a welfare system that is unsustainable is no protection for those in genuine need. Let me press the Minister on a few points, because there was very little detail in his statement. First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer. When will the Government actually take decisive action to get the system back on track? Secondly, the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee in June that the review has the power to recommend reductions, and that he had personally asked it to consider conditions such as anxiety and depression and neurodiverse conditions. Will the interim findings address whether PIP is the right benefit for those conditions, and will he tell the House whether he is ruling them in or ruling them out? Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform? Would it not be better for the review to focus on identifying savings and restoring the long-term sustainability of the welfare system, rather than rubber-stamping an ever-growing bill for taxpayers? Finally, the Milburn review concluded that the PIP system is failing to engage young disabled people in meaningful conversations about aspiration, challenges and the support that they need, yet the Government response appears to move precisely in the opposite direction by extending PIP award periods and reducing the frequency of contact between claimants and the system. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution? Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value. The country cannot afford yet another year of dithering and delay, so I ask the Minister simply: when will the Government stop reviewing and start reforming?

The hon. Gentleman has set out some trenchant criticisms of the system that his party set up and left behind, and the question in everybody’s mind is: why did the Conservatives not do anything about it? They had 14 years, and they left the problems to which he has referred. He should be apologising to the House for the system that the party he represents left behind. The biggest ever rise in the welfare bill was in their last year in government. We previously heard that the Conservative party has a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, although nobody has any idea at all what those cuts will be. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that figure in his statement, so I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives now have a plan. He said that the Conservatives will review PIP; I welcome his belated recognition of the value of a review, but I do not know whether that means that they do not have a plan any more, or that they are throwing away the plan until they have carried out their review. The hon. Gentleman has rightly expressed concern about the rising costs of the system—the public are rightly concerned about that—and particularly about the steep increase in the number of young people who are claiming, but we have set up work to address that problem. His party abandoned the growing number of young people applying for benefits; we will not do so. We are changing the question that the system is asking, and we are providing employment support and the youth guarantee to give young people the chance of a decent future. The hon. Gentleman complained about the small number of face-to-face assessments, but that is what was left behind by the previous Government. Understandably, the system moved away from face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, but they were never brought back; that is the problem. We are increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which is an important and positive step. When we were upstairs debating a measure to facilitate greater face-to-face assessment, another shadow Minister said that it was a “nice to have”, rather than essential. We think that face-to-face assessments are key to rebuilding trust in the system, and that is why we are making the changes we are. The system that the Conservatives left behind did not work for disabled people, and did not work for taxpayers. This review will bring forward proposals to fix the problems that they created.

I apologise for the fact that—as I have explained to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will have to leave straight after my question to chair Westminster Hall. I thank my right hon. Friend for doing this very challenging piece of work. I think that the theme of fairness, for the people who need benefits and for taxpayers, is right. I have spoken to him briefly about the complaints from the Link Community Hub in Stradbroke in my constituency about the fact that people there with mental health conditions who are claiming PIP have drug abuse and alcohol abuse conditions, and are using PIP to fund those conditions. I have also complained about the young lads in their 20s driving around in Motability cars in Darnall; someone in the community has been paid to fill in the forms for them. On the other hand, so many constituents with really serious conditions get turned down for PIP, and can get it only if they struggle through the appeal system, sometimes without any help at all. So the system is not fair to anyone at present. I commend him for his suggestions, but is he going to have a real look at the different reasons people give for applying for PIP, and at how to respond to them properly?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think we have an appointment in the diary to talk about the issues that he has raised about his constituency, and his constituent who has drawn his attention to them. My hon. Friend is right that, at present, the system does not work properly for disabled people, and it does not give taxpayers confidence that the funding is being well used. We are determined to turn things around and to be fair to both, and I am grateful for his support for the efforts we are making.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Minister and everyone involved in the review for their hard work; this is a difficult subject, so it is much appreciated. Today’s report has confirmed what perhaps all of us knew for many years, which is that PIP is supposed to act as a lifeline, but is administered through a broken system. Disabled people say that the application process actively disincentivises them from staying in work and maintaining an active social life. That is unfair on claimants and damaging for our economy, and it should worry us all. People deserve far better. We welcome this interim report, and we will engage constructively with the Government and play our role in the delivery of genuine improvements to the system. We want a society in which everyone can live independently and with dignity. We need the right support in place to ensure that disabled people and their carers can live their best possible lives, and the PIP system must be built around those principles. We must, however, recognise the structural underlying challenges in the operation of the system. In 2024 prices, spending on incapacity and disability benefits rose from £34 billion a year in 2019 to £51 billion a year in 2024, under the previous Conservative Government. The number of those economically inactive due to long-term health issues rose from 2.1 million to more than 2.8 million in the same period, and the figure is stuck at a similarly high level now. This is seriously worrying, and the UK is largely an outlier in that regard. On current trends, the total bill for working-age sickness and disability benefits is projected to rise to £78 billion in 2030, which means that it will have more than doubled in 10 years. Managing these economic pressures in an effective, fair and sustainable way is vital, so could the Minister expand a little on the work done to make sure that the evidence gathered is representative? Is work under way to address the root causes of these challenges in a holistic way, looking at everything from employment support to mental health? Can he also update the House on progress on merging PIP and universal credit incapacity benefit assessments?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review, and for his tribute to those who have put a great deal of work into it already, and who will be putting in a lot more between now and the autumn. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the points that the system is not working well for disabled people at the moment, and that its costs are rising rapidly in a way that is of concern to many, including, rightly, taxpayers. He is right to highlight that this benefit, which is supposed to contribute to independence and participation, too often presents a barrier to those things, because so many people are worried that if they undertake an activity, the Department for Work and Pensions will say, when they get reassessed, “Oh, so you didn’t need your benefit after all, then,” and take it away. There is striking evidence of the scale of the concern about going to work, or taking part in exercise or sport. The current system presents significant barriers, and we want to address those. There are, absolutely, concerns about the rising costs, which we also need to address. All those factors will be in the minds of the steering group as we progress with the review, ahead of our final report in autumn. The steering group, as I mentioned, is made up almost entirely of disabled people. The concern about the financial sustainability of this benefit is of great concern to them as well, because if it is deemed to be not financially sustainable then there is a risk to its future. We need the support to be present for the long term for the large number of people for whom it is vital.

I thank the Minister for his work and look forward to welcoming him to Graeae theatre in my constituency, which is an exemplar of how to support disabled people to work and fully participate. In the discussions he has had so far, is he looking at adaptive technology? Money can be one of the barriers to living a full life, but there are now new technologies that can sometimes be in place of some of the funding that has been available for people to buy things themselves. Is he having any discussions with the steering group on that issue?

We are doing quite a lot of work in the Department specifically on assistive technology. In fact, the Secretary of State was at a roundtable recently with representatives of the tech industry. One problem is that the technology is moving on rapidly but a lot of people do not know about it. People are not even aware of the technology that is already in our phones and available without any extra charge. We are doing quite a lot of work on that at the moment. I hope we will, later this year, be able to issue a call for evidence on how to do a better job on exactly the areas my right hon. Friend highlights.

I thank the right hon. Member for his statement. What a shame he has been asked to look at this issue only now, when his party had 14 long years in Opposition to work out what they wanted to do. Given that he acknowledges the system needs reform—as every new Government acknowledge—does he accept that, in today’s world, a system of cash payments to some people with conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, where half the claimants are aged between 16 to 24, is not what they need most? Indeed, some of them have no financial needs at all. Does he accept that the money would be best saved—will he confirm that there will be savings?—and some of it invested in better health and community services, technology, and incentivising businesses to employ the six in 10 young people who are not in education, training or work?

I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital. We will not be moving away from the importance of that, but I think there is a question about whether the process can also point people towards help that may be valuable to them in addition to, or in some cases perhaps instead of, a cash payment. There is help and support that people need, and I think the process could help to point people to that. One problem people have had to contend with is the terrible NHS waiting lists, which thankfully are now being reduced, but the system may be able to point people to the right place in the health service. We are looking at all those issues and we will come back with recommendations in our final report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I welcome the review’s direction of travel. As we know, the PIP system is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it has created much mistrust, stress and worry. More importantly, it has created a hostile environment for disabled people. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, which the Minister attended along with representatives of the steering group, we heard from disabled people about their experiences, and from organisations including Mencap and the Royal National Institute of Blind People that the assessment and PIP do not truly reflect or recognise the lived experience of many disabled people. As we move forward into the second phase of the review, can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to have co-production at the heart of this process? The Minister should be commended for the work he is doing in co-producing the review. It is the first time the Department has taken that step, so we really cannot take lessons from the Conservative party. Can he reassure me that co-production will remain at the heart of this work?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to her work as the chair of the APPG on disability, and I am grateful to her for her welcome to us the other week. She is absolutely right. I very much hope that people with sight impairments and others looking at the review will feel that the Government have listened to the points that have been made for a long time. I assure her that co-production will be at the heart of the rest of the work as well. It was, of course, a decision of this House that the review should be co-produced. We have worked very hard to ensure that we are properly co-producing it. I think we are gaining the benefits of that approach and that the outcome from this exercise will be significantly better because it is a co-produced review.

Does the review plan to look into the question of what happens when something goes wrong in the arrangements for a disabled person receiving PIP or universal credit? This time last week I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions the fact that my casework team had been trying for six months to get an answer on behalf of someone who lost PIP and UC. We had a holding letter in February, but we have still had no substantive reply and this lady is getting more and more desperate. We did write to the Minister on 8 June. I know he has been very busy, but he should be receiving a letter, if he has not already, from the Leader of the House. When he deals with that individual case, will it perhaps serve as a guide to what is needed more generally to be able to communicate on behalf of our constituents?

Yes, I shall look out for the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and I hope he will receive a reply in short order. He is right that the system needs to work well for people to be confident in it. One thing he may welcome is that we have just started recording by default the assessments for PIP—the focus in the review is on PIP specifically—partly so that when something does go badly wrong, and his constituent’s case may well be an example of that, we can look back at what happened in the assessment and ensure that that mistake does not happen again.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his work with disability groups as part of the review. As I saw during the APPG on disability roundtable and at the roundtable in Newcastle that I organised, the lived experience of those affected by disability must drive the reform of the disability benefit system. The report highlights that that lived experience is also shaped by the misinformation, disinformation and confusion around disability benefits as part of the wider public debate, which can lead to the demonisation of those with disabilities. It can also lead to unrealistic assumptions and expectations in communities more broadly. What can he do as part of his review to address that misinformation, disinformation and confusion, and ensure a stronger, more rigorous and better evidenced public debate?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and she is absolutely right. It has certainly been very clear in our review that there is concern among disabled people about some of the misinformation that she refers to. We want to ensure that correct and clear information is provided to people, and that there is clarity on the eligibility criteria for PIP and the assessment process. I hope that is going to help, but I think there will need to be other efforts, and we will work with disabled people’s organisations and disability charities to significantly improve the position.

There is a fundamental question here about what our priority is. Is it to reduce the bill, to reduce the amount of money that we are spending, or to ensure that disabled people can access all the human rights that the rest of us can, access society and be supported? We must recognise the extra costs of disability. What is the priority? The Conservatives are very clear: their priority is to reduce the bill. Our priority is to ensure that disabled people can live full, pleasant, excellent and wonderful lives. I appreciate the really hard work that has been put in by the team who have been involved in the co-production. May I continue to encourage the Minister to talk to Social Security Scotland and our colleagues in the SNP Government about their experiences of the adult disability payment and whether the changes that have been implemented in Scotland would make a positive difference to those claiming PIP?

Our objective must be both the things that the hon. Lady refers to. We need a system that works well for disabled people and that helps to remove unnecessary barriers that too often hold them back, but we also need to create a system that has the confidence of taxpayers, which is the objective of our review. We are certainly very interested in what has been happening in Scotland, and in the work of Social Security Scotland. At one of our forthcoming expert evidence sessions, we will hear from Edel Harris, who, as the hon. Lady knows, has recently undertaken a review of the adult disability payment in Scotland. We are very keen to monitor what has happened there.

I welcome the review and thank disabled people, who have shaped it. Last year, I was pleased that the Minister accepted my amendment to the Universal Credit Bill to ensure that co-production with disabled people was put at the heart of the Timms review before any future changes to PIP were brought forward. Today’s rich and important findings demonstrate why “nothing about us without us” is so crucial in shaping Government disability policy. How does the Minister plan to ensure that colleagues across his Department—as well as Alan Milburn and Sir Charlie Mayfield, who are reviewing ways to close the employment gap for disabled people and young people with mental health problems—learn from the Timms review and integrate the voices of disabled people? Will the Minister agree to come back to the House with the full findings of his report and to ensure that changes to PIP are joined up with the findings of the two other reviews, so that there is strategic coherence across Government policy on getting more disabled people into work?

I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her amendment. As she rightly says, that was what took us down the road of co-production, which I think has been a very fruitful avenue for the review. Central Government have certainly not done co-production on this scale before—I am not sure that we have done co-production at all in the past—but we are undertaking this review in a thoroughly co-produced way. It has been a very positive experience, including for the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will want to learn the lessons for future work. One thing that we will be doing is evaluating this review, so that those lessons can be properly documented and taken account of in the future. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to stay in touch with Sir Charlie Mayfield, who leads the Keep Britain Working review, and Alan Milburn, whose work I have referred to. I spoke to Alan the other day, and we will ensure that all this work is taken together. I am pleased that both Alan and Sir Charlie Mayfield have been talking to disabled people’s organisations to contribute to their work, and I know that will continue.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), I welcome the broad direction of the review. I acknowledge that this is happening in the context of some people attempting to create a hostile environment—I hope Count Binface will deal with one source of that hostile environment in the weeks to come—but there is also the issue of language, as I think the Minister acknowledges. We should use less of the language of “welfare benefits” and “dependency”, and more of the language of “investment in people”, particularly investment in mental health services. Will he work with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are supported before they need benefits, and that we invest in people so that their talents can be enjoyed in the workplace?

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of language. This is a topic that the organisation Turn2us has been thinking about lately. One of the things that I am pleased about is that my job title is Minister for Social Security. I think that I am the first Minister to have “Social Security” in their job title since the abolition of the old Department of Social Security at the end of the 1990s. I think “social security” is a good term, and this review is about delivering that.

I thank the Minister for all the work that he has done, especially on the co-production front, which has been so important to disabled communities. One of my constituents had his PIP disallowed on renewal over a late form. He was reassessed, with no change to his condition, and scored zero points, which was upheld on review. It was only at tribunal, where my team represented him, that he finally won the highest rate of daily living support, having gone two whole years without any help. What reassurances can the Minister give me that this type of dehumanising failure will not be seen under the new system?

It is certainly our objective that the dehumanising aspects of the current system—he describes an example very well—should not be a feature of the future system. That is the clear aim of this review. The case to which he refers is not unusual, and many hon. Members will have similar examples from their own constituencies. The fact that we are now recording assessments by default could help us to find out why that assessment went so badly wrong. I really hope that we can improve things and rebuild confidence among disabled people and taxpayers that the system is doing the job we need it to do.

I have heard from constituents of different ages who are concerned about the planned changes to PIP, and who highlight its importance in enabling them to work and to play a full part in society. I want to ask specifically about young people under the age of 25. What mechanisms are being put in place as part of this review to ensure that young people with cancer and other disabilities are considered, and that their distinct experiences are properly accounted for and heard as part of this process?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) just gave us an example—is that people have applied, the outcome has been wrong, and there has been a long, drawn-out process involving an appeal to get to the right answer. I hope that we will be able to develop an assessment that much more frequently comes up with the right answer the first time round, and that recognises where somebody has additional costs as a result of cancer and is therefore eligible for PIP. We will be talking to representatives of people with cancer, including young people, as part of our work, and I hope we will be able to come forward with recommendations that deal with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

It is very welcome to hear of the work that the Minister is doing. He will know that one of our long-standing concerns is that one of the missing pieces of this puzzle is employers’ attitude and approach to working with disabled people, and some of the misinformation that they might hold about things like PIP. He will know that disabled people often have to make 60% more job applications to get even an interview, and that one in three reports experiencing direct discrimination in the workplace. Can he update us on the response that he has had from employers about the role that they can play in changing the situation and recognising the talent that exists within our disabled communities?

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is at the heart of the Keep Britain Working review that Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading at the moment. He produced his report in November, which was directly about what more employers can do to ensure that their workplaces are accessible to disabled people, so that people who run into a health problem or disability in the course of their work do not automatically have to leave work, as too often happens. The reasons for that concern are exactly the ones that my hon. Friend raises: huge talent is too often being wasted. I am pleased that after Sir Charlie’s report was completed, he started working with 75 vanguard employers to develop the ideas in the report. I understand that the number is now up to about 250; there is a lot of employer enthusiasm here because they recognise how important it is. Quite often, the problem is that employers are not sure what to do in a difficult situation when somebody has a health problem. That review will take us a long way forward on exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises.

The Timms review pledges to develop ambitious, evidence-based recommendations that are practical, deliverable and capable of delivering meaningful change. I welcome the interim report. The devolution of social security to Wales is a prime contender, as it would allow the creation and delivery of social protections that better reflect the needs of our communities in Wales, as part of the Welsh benefits system. That is widely supported in Wales, including by disabled people’s organisations. Can the Minister assure me that the Timms review will not let the opportunity for devolution pass?

We certainly do not want to let any opportunities from the review pass; it is a one-off groundbreaking review, and we want to make the most of it. This morning, I had a good conversation with the new Minister in Wales, and we have agreed that we will work closely together. It is important that voices from Wales are properly heard in the review. A member of our steering group is a former board member of Disability Wales, and I want to make the most of the expertise and experience from Wales in the course of the work.

I thank the Minister for his update and his collaborative approach to the co-production process, as well as the time he spent with me and colleagues earlier in the year to discuss the experiences of those living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s. The Minister mentioned that disabled people find the assessment dehumanising and stressful; that is particularly the case for those who live with fluctuating conditions and invisible symptoms, for whom no two days may be the same. Will the Minister provide an update on how the lived realities of those with fluctuating conditions will be better reflected in any new assessment process?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help in the discussions and her continuing interest in the review. Criticisms of the way that the current assessment process handles fluctuating conditions are probably the most frequently aired criticism of how the system works at the moment, and it is important that we come up with something that does that job well. We have talked to a lot to people with Parkinson’s, for example, and yesterday my two co-chairs and I were at the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The need to do the job well for people with fluctuating and degenerative conditions is at the centre of our concern, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do the good job that my hon. Friend wants us to do.

I thank the Minister and the steering group for their work. Their findings that disabled people find the assessment process dehumanising and stressful reflect the conversations that my constituents have had with me. Paragraph 64 of the review finds that “the reliance on PIP has likely increased due to difficulty accessing vital services and support, such as community mental health services” and Access to Work. Does he agree that the reform of disability benefits in the future must go hand in hand with improving those support services, such as by widening Access to Work and, in particular, cutting NHS mental health waiting lists, which are far too long? The Minister referred to falling waiting lists; I gently say to him that while physical waiting lists are falling, mental heath waiting lists have not been falling. The longest waits have increased since last December, and the Government need to get a grip on it.

My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that the NHS is delivering on all aspects of its work. There is a big problem with long delays and backlogs in the Access to Work scheme. We have recently announced the recruitment of an additional 480 people, which means that the number of people working on Access to Work applications will have more than doubled since the general election. We are confident that that will enable us to eradicate the backlog for Access to Work by September of next year. My hon. Friend is right that all those services need to work well and support people together. That is our aim.

I thank the Minister for his statement and the recognition that, for many people, claiming PIP is not an easy process; it is deeply stressful, particularly reapplications and reassessments or delays on appeal. There are appalling levels of stress in the community as a whole, and I hope that this can be addressed seriously in the future. Page 8 of the interim report mentions that future PIP spending will be within the envelope predicted by the OBR. Does that mean that there is going to be some form of cash limiting for PIP, or does the report accept the principle that personal independence payments—which are incredibly valuable—are based on an assessment of the needs of people, rather than a Treasury-based limit on spending?

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the degree of stress involved in the process. I spoke to somebody at a roundtable in Northern Ireland who told me she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the course of her working life, which came as a terrible shock and was a traumatic experience. A few years later, her condition had deteriorated and she had to apply for PIP; she said that the experience of applying was as traumatising as the original diagnosis. The effects that people have suffered are very serious. The terms of reference for the review require us to stay within the currently projected OBR spending on PIP. There is not a cash limit, but one can project what the spending is going to be. The steering group is constrained to stick within currently predicted spending. I think that there may well be reductions, because if we do all the things that we have been talking about, we can do a better job for both disabled people and the taxpayers whose taxes are paying for the system.

I welcome the Minister’s interim report and the commitment to co-production with deaf and disabled people’s organisations. The report rightly recognises that while PIP is a highly valued benefit, too many people experience claiming it as stressful, dehumanising and simply not fit for purpose. Frontline organisations such as the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK have welcomed that honest diagnosis, but they warn that disabled people remain anxious about where the review is heading. Does the Minister agree that the real test of success will be the final recommendations being recognised as genuinely co-produced and commanding the confidence of those who rely on PIP? The Minister has mentioned that a good system will bring about savings, but can he assure the House that this will be driven by improving support, not by achieving savings?

I am grateful to organisations like those that my hon. Friend mentioned—the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK—for their support for the interim report. I assure my hon. Friend that the final report will be properly co-produced. It will be led by the steering group that I have referred to, and there is going to be a lot of engagement after the summer around our initial thinking on conclusions, which we will draw up over the summer. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that people will be able to be confident in the conclusions we eventually reach.

I apologise for crossing between you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) earlier. I thank the Minister for Social Security for his statement, for the interim update, which, as he said, is a rare thing as part of a process, and for his approach to dealing with this complex subject with kindness and compassion and treating disabled people with dignity. They really appreciate that. Nearly 300 of my constituents contacted me about the proposed changes to disability support during this consultation period. They consistently described a system that is too often unfair, distressing and mistrustful of disabled people. Can the Minister explain how today’s proposals will restore confidence among claimants that PIP exists to support disabled people, rather than to challenge their entitlement at every turn, and that those who need it will receive it?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review. He mentions being contacted by 300 of his constituents; as I mentioned, our call for evidence received 38,000 responses, which I was very pleased about. We are doing further work, too. At the moment, Workshops in a Box are being carried out around the country to ensure that we also hear from people who may not be up for or willing to submit a formal reply to a call for evidence. The objective that the hon. Gentleman sets out is absolutely right: I do not think it is necessary for the application process for this benefit to have the hostile and adversarial characteristics of the current one, and we are determined to put that right.

I regret the stigmatising language that we have heard even today—this division between disabled people and taxpayers, as though disabled people do not pay taxes, and a division between those who work and those claiming PIP, when we all know that PIP is used to get people into work and support them overall. It seems that those now being targeted for invidious smearing are young people who are facing mental health issues. I urge my right hon. Friend to publish detailed analysis of that issue as soon as possible to give us a greater understanding of it, so that we can perhaps avoid the stigmatisation of these young people.

I am certainly keen to avoid stigmatising anybody. If my right hon. Friend looks at the interim report, he will see that there is quite a lot of evidence specifically on that point. It is very important that that evidence is properly sifted and assessed in the course of our work, and we will do that. We want to remove barriers, because too often young people in particular have started to claim benefits and then the system has abandoned them, which is neither in their interests nor consistent with their aspirations. It is not in the interests of the Government or society, either. We need to support young people to be able to participate in work and in other things by removing the barriers that have stopped them doing that in the past, and that is what we are determined to do.

Many of my constituents, including those already suffering the devastating consequences of the cuts to the health component of universal credit, are following the work of the Timms review closely and with trepidation. Like me, they know that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, but is intended as a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability, from food to fuel and transport. Will the Minister ensure that any proposals brought forward to the House are not driven by the desire for short-term cuts that motivated the last two proposals, and that the focus is instead on how people actually experience disability?

I can give my hon. Friend exactly the assurance that she seeks: this will be a properly and carefully considered piece of work. She is absolutely right that PIP can be claimed by people who are in work or out of work. When we were having the debates last summer, a lot of people made the point that PIP is what enables them to go to work; without it, they would not be able to get to work. The question that arises in the terms of reference is: what can we do to ensure that in future PIP does a better job of removing the barriers that have stopped people working in the past? We want to bring that about.

The interim report rightly recognises what disabled people have long been saying, which is that PIP is a broken system. What assurances can the Minister give that the recommendations of the final report will be grounded in disabled people’s right to social security, right to independent living and right to participate in society? Will disabled people and their organisations properly shape the next phase of the reforms, rather than merely being consulted on them?

Yes, they will. The co-production approach that we have taken so far will be the approach that we take throughout the review. Over the summer, we will be formulating our initial thoughts about conclusions and recommendations and then, in September or October, we will be discussing them with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations and we will hold events in different parts of the country to ensure that it is disabled people who are shaping the final conclusions that we bring forward.

I declare that one of my children is in receipt of the disability living allowance. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the interim report. Earlier, we heard—without irony—a list of criticisms from the Opposition about the personal independence payment that they handed over to this Government. Clearly, part of the problem is also the SEND policies and the health service that they handed over to this Government. As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that we need cross-departmental buy-in as part of this process, as part of the SEND review, as part of health reform in the 10-year plan and as part of a review of PIP. Will he commit today to continuing to look at that issue, particularly for young people, and to looking again at whether to raise the age of transfer from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18?

On his final point, as my hon. Friend knows, that proposal was consulted on in the Green Paper last year, and we are looking at that. I think he makes a very good point. I can assure him that we are going to be working across Government on exactly the concerns that he raises.

I welcome the interim report and agree that PIP is no longer fit for purpose. However, meaningful reform will succeed only if the DWP adopts the culture of mutual respect that we are seeing through this co-produced process. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that the review will also examine the wider culture in the DWP, which far too often harms the very people it is meant to support?

The focus of the review is very tightly on PIP itself. However, as I touched on earlier, I do think that the Department will want to, and will, learn lessons from the success of this approach to date, which I hope will be fully borne out in the final report that we submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn. I think that will be a mechanism for changing the culture in the Department and the way that it and, I hope, the wider Government work.

I thank the Minister for his statement, his experience and his compassion, and thank the steering group for their work. Walking by on the other side, as others did, is not an option here. We have to get a grip of this broken system, driven by a real focus on ensuring that those with chronic conditions and disabled people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country get the dignity, respect and support that they deserve. As the Minister knows, because I have told him many times, many of my constituents have very loud views on and real experience of this broken system, so will he come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to meet those constituents and hear their views? He will get a very warm Staffordshire welcome if he does so.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. If he would like to drop me a line, I will see how my diary is looking in the next couple of months.

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for all the hard work that has gone into getting us to where we are now. The interim report finds very low levels of trust in the legacy scheme that we inherited from the Conservatives. How will the Minister go about rebuilding that trust not only with disabled people and people with long-term conditions, but with the general public, to ensure that there is the understanding and respect that we all think should be part of the system?

The key first step is to complete this review in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, and we will be doing that. Then I think it is a question of people seeing what the new system will be and observing in due course how it works. I hope that in that way we can rebuild trust and confidence in the system on the part of both disabled people and taxpayers—recognising the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that there is a big overlap between those two categories.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership on this issue. One of the leading causes of disability, particularly for working-age adults, is stroke. It is a subject I know all too well; my dad had a life-altering stroke at 55, and 10 years later, just days after his 65th birthday, it was a stroke that killed him. During those 10 years, PIP was an absolute lifeline for him. We learned very quickly as a family the importance of rehabilitation, which is why I was so concerned recently when I met representatives of the Stroke Association, who said that just 7% of stroke survivors are receiving the rehabilitation recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in rehabilitation will not only improve people’s mobility and independence but reduce their reliance on PIP?

I agree that rehabilitation is very important. Perhaps I should refer my hon. Friend’s point to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I know will be very interested in it as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that when the health service is doing the job that we all want it to do, there will be less of a need to call on PIP, because people’s needs will be dealt with by the health service. I will certainly pass on the important point that he has raised.

I declare an interest as the father of a child in receipt of DLA. “Not fit for purpose”, “degrading”, “dehumanising”, “stressful”—the findings of this report reflect what I hear from my constituents. As the Minister moves to the next phase—co-production—will he look at moving to a more personalised, individualised approach? A lot of the review’s findings relate to the application process and this sort of arbitrary gatekeeping around entitlement to money, when all people are asking for is support to live independent, dignified and productive lives.

My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. Yes, I hope that we will be able to come up with a proposal that will entail greater personalisation. At the moment, for example, the number of different rates of benefit paid out is not very many—it is quite a lumpy system. I think there is a question to be asked about whether something more personalised could do a better job. My hon. Friend makes an important point.