Bishop Helen-Ann spoke during the second reading of the Universal Credit Bill on 22 July 2025.
My Lords, I want to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble lady, Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson and look forward to her maiden speech and acknowledge the noble lady Baroness Bryan for her valedictory. My remarks also begin by thanking Ministers for listening to concerns about the Bill as it was initially brought forward.
A functional social security system is one that tackles poverty and supports people to live full lives. With that, the system needs to retain public confidence, expressing the best of our values. It must also strike a balance between people who are able to work being supported to do so, whilst ensuring that people who cannot work are protected and cherished for who they are. We need economic growth, that is not disputed, this is after all a money bill, but I have a concern at those who are either left behind or who do not fit the model of financial productivity at the rate that seems to be desired. There is a granularity to this debate about the complexity of people’s lives that does not always fit into neat economic models.
I therefore note the point raised by the noble lady, Baroness Bennett in her regret motion about the rates of poverty among disabled people who are already disproportionately likely to be living in poverty. This can have an impact on children making their start in life all the more challenging, deepening systemic injustices. This landscape of poverty and economic inactivity is acute in the area covered by my diocese in the Northeast. There are opportunities to make a difference in local communities – devolved authority mayors, councillors, community leaders and citizens – but turning the tide on poverty still requires decisive leadership and vision from central government. One of dozens of emails I have received in recent days came from a father in the Northeast who told me about his son who has complex disabilities, who would like to work one day but who is struggling to navigate what feels like a punitive approach in the changes to Universal Credit. His capacity to enter the workforce faces barriers even before he can contemplate exploring opportunities. Our values should hold us to account for how we raise up the most weak and vulnerable.
So what do we need? My Lords, I suggest some joined-up thinking. I understand the Government’s desire to reform the system. It is becoming more expensive to administer, and even if it were not, proportionate actions should be taken to help people make the most of their gifts and skills, whether in the labour market or through volunteering in their community. But the fact that social security spending is rising, and more people receive health benefits, points to shortcomings elsewhere. When it comes to PIP, we should not shy away from the difficult questions the Timms Review needs to ask and answer about the assessment process, the treatment of physical and mental health, and a reasonable eligibility threshold. None of that can happen without tackling some of the causes of ill-health: the underinvestment in social security and social housing in recent decades; the shortage of mental health provision; the effects of insecure, demoralising work. I am glad that some of these challenges are being addressed by government, but I hope that they will not be considered in isolation, that the government will monitor the impact of this Bill closely and that the lives of all our citizens can be improved so we may all flourish together, each according to their capacity and need.