Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I am sure Members across the House will have seen the wonderful news this morning and join me in congratulating Ferguson Marine on winning a substantial Ministry of Defence shipbuilding contract through BAE Systems. That is great news for the workforce, who will play a key role in keeping our country and its people safe. Shipbuilding on the Clyde is thriving thanks to the UK Government’s record investment in defence, supporting 4,000 jobs; this is a real defence dividend for Scotland. This is investment that the SNP seeks to block, but Labour will build.
This is the last Scottish oral questions before summer recess, so can I thank you, Mr Speaker, your team and all the House staff for all your work over the last year? This was a historic spending review for Scotland that ended austerity. Along with last year’s Budget, it delivered an extra £14 billion as a UK Labour Government dividend to Scotland. That is more money for our NHS, police, housing and schools. Scots will not accept continued SNP failure on Scottish public services and will rightly ask the SNP: where has all the money gone?
Gregor Poynton
This UK Labour Government are delivering the largest budgetary settlement in the history of devolution, with an extra £9.1 billion to invest in Scottish public services, yet the SNP Scottish Government continue to squander opportunity after opportunity and waste the public’s money. Will he join me in urging the SNP Scottish Government to get a grip and invest in projects that matter to our communities, such as the East Calder medical centre, which has not materialised after SNP dither and delay?
Ian Murray
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that call, and I pay tribute to his tenacious campaigning to see East Calder’s new medical centre delivered. I am 10,000 GP places short in my own constituency, and the SNP needs to take that seriously. The spending review generated £5.8 billion in health-related Barnett consequentials for Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to stand up for his community in East Calder, and I ask the SNP: where has all the money gone?
Katrina Murray
I have previously praised in this Chamber the efforts of the fire and rescue service in responding to more than one major incident in Cumbernauld. Both my constituents and I are therefore concerned that the proposed cuts to Cumbernauld fire station will undermine its ability to respond to incidents and put lives at risk. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Scottish Government to invest in fire services in one of Scotland’s largest towns?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend quite rightly speaks out against the cuts to Cumbernauld fire station, which sadly is just one example of the SNP’s dangerous mismanagement of Scotland’s fire services, as the Fire Brigades Union in Scotland told me just last month. There are 9.1 billion reasons why the SNP Government should choose to invest in local services, including in Cumbernauld, but after 18 years of failure and neglect my hon. Friend’s constituents will rightly not hold out much hope. Across Scotland, we need a new direction next May, with Anas Sarwar as the First Minister.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State share my view that, whatever the SNP Scottish Government’s budget, they have cynically and systematically deprived funding from areas that do not support independence, leaving councils such as Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders and their health boards struggling to provide basic services?
Ian Murray
I would extend that and say that the whole of Scotland voted against independence in 2014. It seems to me that the SNP Government’s strategy is to starve all Scotland’s public services of the vital funding that they require.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The spending review came off the back of last year’s autumn Budget, which hit businesses in my constituency in north-east Scotland very hard, whether it was family businesses and farms with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, or the extension of and increase in the energy profits levy hitting investment in our vital oil and gas sector. What conversations is the Secretary of State having actively with the Treasury to ensure that north-east Scotland does not have to pay the price for this Government’s decisions again next year?
Ian Murray
I have had a minimum of 14 billion conversations with the Treasury with regard to funding in Scotland. This is the largest settlement ever in the history of the Scottish Parliament. This Government’s decisions in the October Budget and the spending review have given us the highest growth in the G7, the highest business confidence in a decade, record inward investment, three major trade deals and the conditions for four interest rate cuts, all helping businesses right across Scotland—everything that the hon. Lady and her party voted against.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the great news for Ferguson Marine this morning. As he knows, Scottish Liberal Democrats secured funding for key projects across Scotland in last year’s Scottish budget negotiations, including the Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh, which is so important for my constituents and his. We welcome the additional funding as part of the spending review to help projects such as that, but almost two decades of SNP mismanagement have left our health service in dire need of investment and improvement. Does he agree that the SNP should invest this funding wisely in GPs, dentists and care so that our constituents can see the same focus on innovation in health that was announced by the UK Government last week?
Ian Murray
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh, which is a symptom of the whole of the Scottish Government’s strategy for our NHS services. The SNP promised a new Eye Pavilion in its manifestos in ’07, ’11, ’16 and ’21, and it is yet to deliver it. I bet we see the same process and the same promises in its manifesto in May next year. One in six Scots is stuck on a waiting list, the NHS app is years behind other parts of the UK, and we have the worst cancer waiting times on record. I am sure the hon. Lady and millions of other Scots know that the SNP has failed their NHS. If the SNP had any idea how to fix it, it would have done it by now.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
During the spending review period, the Scottish Government will have to continue to mitigate some of the cruellest Westminster policies. They had to do that under the Tories, and it continues under Labour, not least with the two-child cap. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there are any plans to scrap it?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against the Budget. They voted against all the measures to raise revenue in the Budget, and they voted against the actual spending of it. From the second that this Labour Government took power just over a year ago, there was £14 billion extra going into the Scottish budget. The Scottish Government need to be spending it well, and I am sure the Scottish public will look dimly on a Scottish Government who cannot spend it and improve our public services.
Stephen Gethins
I am not sure the Secretary of State quite caught the question there. We voted against the two-child cap. If there is cash to go around and UK Departments are getting bigger spending increases than the Scottish Government, why will he not prioritise child poverty? The Child Poverty Action Group described getting rid of the two-child cap as “the most cost-effective way” to cut child poverty. It was described by the Pensions Minister as “immoral”. The Cabinet Office’s recent report “Tackling Child Poverty” stated:
“There is a lot we can learn from action already being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
Will the Secretary of State make scrapping the two-child poverty cap a priority, or will he insist on failed Tory policies?
Ian Murray
Going by the votes last week, the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the failed, broken welfare system that the Tories put in. What we have done as a Government is a pay rise for 200,000 Scots, day one rights for sick leave and parental leave and £150 off energy bills for more than half a million Scottish households, and we have banned exploitative zero-hours contracts. There are 10,000 children in Scotland every single night going to bed without a home. That is a dreadful record for the Scottish Government.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Artificial intelligence will drive incredible change in our country. It will turbocharge growth and boost living standards. Scotland, as we know well, has been the UK’s home of AI since 1963, and it will become the home of the most powerful supercomputer in the UK, with this Labour Government investing £750 million in its development at the University of Edinburgh’s advanced computing facility in Midlothian. We are currently assessing applications for AI growth zones from across the UK, including several from Scotland, which is at the cutting edge of computing power globally.
Kenneth Stevenson
It is refreshing to have a UK Government so committed to investing in and developing AI, in comparison with John Swinney and the Scottish Government, who are stuck in an analogue age, unable even to provide patients and staff with a functioning NHS app. Does the Minister agree that the towns of Airdrie and Shotts and the former industrial heartland of North Lanarkshire are incredibly well placed to serve as an AI growth zone and capture the Government’s clear ambition?
Kirsty McNeill
Much like my hon. Friend, who is a truly passionate advocate for his community, I am proud to represent one of Scotland’s industrial heartlands. He is right to highlight the role that they can play in Scotland’s AI future. As for his comments regarding the First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary was particularly astute in his assessment. I am afraid that the First Minister is from the age of “Taggart”, when what is upon us is the age of “Dept. Q”.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The transmission line from Skye to Fort Augustus has been approved. Due to a technicality, the people along the route will be deprived of £22 million. Will the Minister take this up with Ofgem?
Kirsty McNeill
I am led to believe that the hon. Member has already picked this matter up with the Secretary of State, who will be taking it forward, but I would be delighted to talk to the hon. Member about it.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Secretary of State and I are committed to supporting a flourishing broadcasting sector in Scotland and regularly meet its representatives. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was part of a recent engagement that the Scotland Office was delighted to co-host with MG Alba, where he spoke passionately about the importance of Gaelic broadcasting, and we share his commitment to it.
Torcuil Crichton
We islanders have always been international ambassadors, and I am delighted that some of the Lewis chess pieces are going to France—a little bit of Gaelic Scotland in President Macron’s pocket. Gaelic broadcasting also has a global reach: 1.8 million viewers watched “An t-Eilean”, MG Alba’s detective series. Gaelic is a big part of Brand Scotland. Requesting more money for broadcasting is a straightforward ask, but may I ask Ministers to think more imaginatively about growth deals? Can we see a Scotland-wide growth deal for Gaelic, for cultural heritage items such as the Lewis chess pieces and for childcare, so that we can grow the social infrastructure of Scotland as well as its physical infrastructure?
Kirsty McNeill
That is an interesting point. My hon. Friend has been advancing this case, and he is right: the whole objective of the growth deals is to enable people to live well in the places that they love. As he knows, the UK Government have delivered a historic spending review for Scotland, which includes ambitious plans for local growth to become the foundation of national renewal. The Scotland Office will continue to engage with him and with other Members on both sides of the House, and with Scottish local government, to ensure that local growth investment supports the change that Labour promised and the change that our communities want to see.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There have been a number of co-productions by BBC Northern Ireland and BBC Scotland. Does the Minister agree that we should develop and promote co-productions throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, so that we can see excellence and best practice everywhere in the UK?
Kirsty McNeill
I do agree that we should be co-operating as far as possible. Steps have already been taken to preserve the future of home-grown content and talent through initiatives such as the UK Government’s independent film tax credit and high-end tax relief, providing a real opportunity for the industry to grow, but I should certainly like to talk to the hon. Gentleman about how the industries in Scotland and Northern Ireland could co-operate more effectively.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
The industrial strategy is transformational for Scotland. A year ago, the Government inherited an industrial crisis after 14 years of no plan and a complete lack of interest on the part of the SNP and the Conservatives when it came to Scottish industry. However, I congratulate the SNP on its job creation programme: it has created tens of thousands of jobs in China, Turkey and Poland. Rather than standing up for Scotland, it has been shipping Scottish jobs overseas.
Scotland has a proud industrial past, and Labour’s industrial strategy will work to ensure that we have a bright industrial future. We in the Scotland Office will be doing all that we can to exploit these opportunities.
John Grady
The industrial strategy identifies defence as a key industry. It is a big employer in Glasgow, and could create many good jobs for my constituents. However, the SNP has banned the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise from investing in defence companies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that the SNP Government are weak when it comes to defending Scotland, and are denying Glaswegians many good jobs?
Ian Murray
You will be unsurprised, Mr Speaker, to hear me say that I agree with my hon. Friend. I was astonished to learn that the SNP was blocking investment in a national specialist welding centre on the banks of the Clyde, putting its own student politics before job opportunities for working-class young people, and that it was doing so at a time when one in six are not in education, employment or training. Putting politics before people is just not good enough, but where the SNP stands down, Labour will step up and fund that centre. We will invest in defence, and create a defence dividend that will mean jobs and opportunities for everyone in Scotland.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
With the exception of the London vortex that sucks in wealth capital and talent from across these islands, it is Scotland that tops the league for foreign direct investment. It is Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh that are among the top 10 cities in the UK for FDI, as they have been for 10 of the 18 years in which the SNP has been in power. What has the Scottish Secretary ever done to get foreign direct investment into Scotland?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman needs to calm down a little bit. One of the key opportunities for investment in Scotland is the opportunity to invest in the renewable energy sector, so that we can realise our plan for clean energy by 2030. Much of that will be capitalised by the national wealth fund and GB Energy, both of which the hon. Gentleman and his party voted against.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Last Sunday, 6 July, marked 37 years since the Piper Alpha disaster, an incident that claimed the lives of 165 men and affected many more, particularly in and around the north-east of Scotland. We remember them, their families and friends, and indeed all those who continue to do the dangerous work offshore in our oil and gas industry, ensuring that the lights stay on in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House when the industrial strategy will replace the tens of thousands of jobs that are set to be lost in the North sea on his watch?
Ian Murray
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying respects on the 37th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. It has left an indelible scar on Scotland, and we will never forget the lives that were lost, but we will also never forget that it was the catalyst for making sure that the North sea is the safest place to do oil and gas anywhere in the world—the UK is world leading.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by saying that he and his party have opposed all the initiatives that this Government have put forward in order to get to clean power by 2030. I gently say to him that when he finds out who the former Energy Minister was in the previous Government, he is going to be very disappointed.
Andrew Bowie
We are very proud of our record on supporting the oil and gas industry. Talk about the Government having their heads in the sand: 400 jobs will be lost in the North sea every two weeks on the Secretary of State’s watch. That is a Grangemouth-sized event every two weeks. The only strategy that this Government have is a deindustrialisation strategy. There is an industry with a skilled workforce that is ready and willing to generate energy, revenue and jobs in Scotland, so come on, Secretary of State, let us have a real industrialisation strategy. Remove the energy profits levy, overturn the ban on licences, and let us return to a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea.
Ian Murray
The energy profits levy was brought in by the former Energy Minister in the previous Government, who just so happens to be sitting across from me at the Dispatch Box today. We have the North sea transition consultation, which has closed. That sets out the pathway to a just transition in the North sea, which will protect jobs, and we want to get to clean power by 2030. Those are the jobs and the careers of the future, but that transition has to take those jobs with it.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Scotland cultivates the very best produce in the world, and we are absolutely committed to supporting Scotland’s agricultural sector and, indeed, all those who live and work in our rural communities. I was very pleased that the Scottish Government’s Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity joined me for a food and farming roundtable that I hosted in Edinburgh in April. We heard directly from the sector about how Scotland’s two Governments can best collaborate and continue to support those who put food on our table.
Aphra Brandreth
Like farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, farmers in Scotland feel let down by this Government’s disregard for agriculture and the countryside. We have seen Labour look the other way as the Scottish Government have delivered real-terms cuts to the agriculture budget. The Scottish Conservatives have set out a clear, multi-year plan to give farmers the certainty they need. Will the Secretary of State urge the First Minister to back that plan, which has strong support from the farming community, and help reverse the damage done to Scottish agriculture and our food security?
Kirsty McNeill
The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement in the devolution era, and it is for the devolved Governments to allocate their funding in devolved areas as they see fit. They are accountable to their own legislatures and, indeed, the Scottish public. That is a key principle of devolution, and this Labour Government will respect it.
John Cooper
We Conservatives were vilified when we pointed out that the vindictive changes to farming reliefs were going to damage jobs in rural Scotland. The Scotland Office conducted its own roundtable with agriculture figures. Will the Minister share the results of that with the House, the Scottish Government and, crucially, whoever the Deputy Prime Minister decides will be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to report back to the House and Scotland’s rural communities, including my own in Midlothian, about the outcomes of the farming roundtable. We heard directly from stakeholders that they want support and, crucially, for the two Governments to work together, which is exactly why we had the Scottish Government around the table.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Scottish agriculture, salmon and distilleries like Lochlea in my constituency will benefit from our three trade deals? Can she work out why the SNP failed to support them?
Kirsty McNeill
Those three trade deals are some of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government, and they will disproportionately benefit Scotland. As I have already said, it is home to some of the finest produce on the face of the Earth, and we are delighted to be promoting it as part of the Scotland Office’s Brand Scotland efforts.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s excellent spending review for Scotland, which sets out record funding for the Scottish Government, means that SNP Ministers are ideally placed to offer the agricultural sector in Scotland a multi-year funding settlement, and that that is exactly what they should now do?
Kirsty McNeill
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Scottish Government have been blessed with a record settlement in the devolution era. The difficulty for those of us on the Labour Benches who have championed that settlement is that we are all too well aware, I am afraid, that the Scottish Government are absolutely addicted to wasting money. That is why the only way for Scotland to take a new direction is to replace the failing Scottish Government with a Labour one in May.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This weekend, I was at the Fettercairn show in my constituency, and I note that the Secretary of State was at the royal highland show in Edinburgh two weeks ago. With new research showing that more than 16,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a direct result of Labour’s family farm tax, what message did the Secretary of State and the Minister have for the farmers they met at the royal highland show about the Government’s plans to kill family farms in Scotland? Judging by the comments made to me this weekend, the fear, anger and disgust at how this Government have treated the agricultural sector and rural Scotland very much remain.
Kirsty McNeill
Our message to the farming community, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland—I meet its representatives regularly and, indeed, spoke at its annual conference—is that there has to be fairness in the Government’s approach to the public finances. The latest figures from 2021-22 show that 40% of the value of agricultural property relief went to just 7% of claimants, which is neither fair nor sustainable.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
The ruling brings clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges and sports clubs. Single-sex spaces are protected by law under Labour’s Equality Act 2010, and will always be protected by this Government alongside the rights of the trans community, as was stated by the Supreme Court.
Dr Evans
Joe Griffin, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, was asked when appearing in front of the Holyrood Finance and Public Administration Committee about action taken in relation to the Supreme Court judgment. When pushed, he said:
“Specific actions, I can’t give you that right now.”
Do the UK Government believe that the Scottish Government are failing to uphold the law?
Ian Murray
The application of the Supreme Court ruling to services in Scotland is of course a matter for the Scottish Government, and it is for the Scottish Government to ensure they fully comply with the law as it stands.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
The Supreme Court judgment provided very welcome legal clarity on the matter of biological sex, but the Scottish Government have met clarity with chaos. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP Government have made an absolute mess of this, in much the same way they have made a mess of passing on the biggest settlement in the history of devolution to Scottish NHS, education and housing services? Is it not time they got a grip?
Ian Murray
I think the F-word could be used about whatever the Scottish Government have done—and that is “failure”. When it comes to the elections in May 2026, the Scottish public will have to decide whether they require a third decade of the SNP Scottish Government or a change with Anas Sarwar as First Minister.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
Under this Government, it is the working people of Scotland who will feel the benefit of economic growth. We have given the largest settlement in the history of the Scottish Government—£14 billion extra. The stability in the economy has enabled four interest rate cuts, meaning cheaper mortgages for home owners. Fuel duty is frozen, meaning 3 million Scots motorists pay less at the pump. The minimum wage is up, meaning a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots—[Interruption.] That deserves a large cheer, because it is for the lowest-paid Scots. Also, the warm home discount has been extended to half a million Scots.
Jerome Mayhew
The jobs tax has decimated business confidence and has seen unemployment rise, and now—along with the Budget blow to Scotch whisky, the attack on family farms and the undermining of the oil and gas industry—the Scottish Hospitality Group has slated the spending review, saying it
“does absolutely nothing to support the hospitality sector”.
Will the Secretary of State work with the Chancellor to undo the damage her Budget and her spending review have inflicted on family farms, Scotch whisky, the oil and gas industry, hospitality, entertainment and business confidence in Scotland?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman should go and speak to Scottish businesses and apologise for voting against the Budget and against the £14 billion extra that will go to Scotland as part of the spending review. As a result of the decisions taken by this Government, we have the highest growth in the G7, the highest business confidence in a decade, record inward investment, three major trade deals and four interest rate cuts—all helping businesses right across the country.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is fantastic news that Ferguson Marine has secured a contract with BAE Systems to help further enhance the UK’s maritime capability, making use of its skilled workforce. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is in sharp contrast to the student union politics played on defence by the SNP Government? Does he agree that the benefits of the spending review cannot be fully assessed until the SNP is removed from power in 2026?
Ian Murray
Yet again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay special tribute to both her and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), who have done so much to make sure we can get work into Ferguson Marine. Again, it will not be lost on the House, or indeed the Scottish public, that the defence industry is supporting jobs in Scotland and straight into Ferguson Marine. Where the Scottish Government walk past on the other side, we will invest.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On Monday, we marked the 20th anniversary of the despicable terrorist attacks on 7/7. The painful memories of that dark day are deeply ingrained: 52 people were murdered and many more were injured. We thank our emergency services who ran towards danger with true bravery, and send our deepest condolences to the victims, the survivors and bereaved, and all those forever affected by that appalling day.
May I also extend our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Lord Tebbit? We remember his profound courage in the face of terrorism and a fierce devotion to his wife, Margaret. May he rest in peace.
We also mark the 30th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. We remember those lost, and redouble our efforts to fight hatred and intolerance wherever it exists.
I am delighted to welcome President Macron to the United Kingdom. Our relationship has never been stronger and we are focused on tough new tactics to tackle illegal migration, on major economic investment to create jobs, and on leading our allies to support Ukraine.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Darren Paffey
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks?
At a recent coffee morning, residents in Southampton Itchen told me how much they still miss the Bitterne NHS walk-in centre, which was shut down a decade ago under the Conservatives. May I begin by welcoming this Government’s 10-year plan and its commitment to neighbourhood health services? Does the Prime Minister agree that, as we put this plan for change into action for my local residents, Bitterne is an excellent location for the first new neighbourhood health centre?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for making the case for his constituents. I know the Health Secretary will give it every consideration. The 10-year plan will establish neighbourhood health centres in every community and will make a massive difference, starting in the places where the need is greatest and life expectancy is at its lowest. I am proud that we promised 2 million extra NHS appointments in the first year of a Labour Government and we have now delivered 4 million. We should not forget that the record investment in the Budget, which made that possible, was opposed by all the Opposition parties.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I echo the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the horrific terrorist attack of 7 July. I was pleased to be at the commemoration service on Monday. In particular, our thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, those who had to go on without their loved ones.
I would like to pay tribute to Lord Tebbit, who died yesterday at the age of 94. He was a man of iron integrity and conviction, who, by his efforts, helped to save our country from the chaos of the 1970s. We all owe him so much.
In its manifesto last year, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
Mrs Badenoch
It is rare—[Interruption.] It is rare that the Prime Minister is able to give a clear answer, but I am glad that he has done so now. He also promised—in fact, he boasted—that he had solved the doctors strike. Only a Prime Minister who was so weak would give doctors a 28% pay rise—only for us now to see them vote to strike again. He folds in every negotiation and claims it is a triumph. [Interruption.] Yes, he does. We saw more promises at the Budget: the Chancellor promised that she would lift the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, because, in her words, they “hurt working people”. Is that still Government policy?
The Prime Minister
No Prime Minister or Chancellor is going to write a Budget in advance. We are absolutely fixed on our fiscal rules; we remain committed to them. We remain committed to our manifesto commitments—I realise that sticking to fiscal rules and manifesto commitments is a bit unfamiliar to the Conservatives. It is because of the decisions the Chancellor and this Government have taken that we can update the House: £120 billion of inward investment into this country since we took office; business confidence at a nine-year high—longer than the Leader of the Opposition has been in Parliament; Deloitte this week saying that the UK is now the best place to invest, creating 384,000 jobs. What a contrast to the mess we inherited from the Conservative party.
Mrs Badenoch
There was no clear answer there. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister fail to rule out freezing tax thresholds. He could say yes to the first question—he could promise—but could not this time. What does this mean? He is talking about record investment and more jobs. We know that people are losing their jobs; unemployment has gone up every single month of Labour’s year in office. What does the issue of tax thresholds mean? It means that under Labour, millions of our poorest pensioners face being dragged into income tax for the first time ever. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that struggling pensioners should face a retirement tax?
The Prime Minister
For a Prime Minister or a Chancellor to say we are not going to write a Budget in advance is not a Labour thing or a Tory thing—every single Prime Minister and Chancellor says that they will not do that. We will stick to our manifesto commitments; we will stick to our fiscal rules. This is a language the Conservatives do not understand, and that is what got us into the problem in the first place. The Leader of the Opposition comes here every week to talk the country down, but that record investment—£120 billion—will mean good, well-paid jobs across the country. This investment is from foreign investors who can choose whether to invest in this country; they are choosing to invest in this country now, because they have confidence in what this Government are doing.
Mrs Badenoch
Investors are fleeing the country. The Prime Minister says he will stick to his manifesto promises, but Labour promised not to put a tax on working people and then we got the jobs tax, and all we have seen are jobs disappearing. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised
“not a penny more on your council tax”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that council tax bills will now rise at their fastest rate in 20 years. Will the Prime Minister admit that under him council tax is set to soar?
The Prime Minister
No, of course it is not. It soared under the last Government. Here she goes again: the Leader of the Opposition is back on familiar territory. She comes here every week complaining about the national insurance rise, and when she is asked whether she would have the courage to reverse it, what is her answer? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No, and I will tell you for why, Mr Speaker. She is too embarrassed to say that she does not want the investment that we have put in. That investment went into the NHS. The Conservatives want that investment, but they cannot say how they would pay for it. That is what got us into the problem in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister still does not understand, so I am going to make it very simple for him: this is a mess of his own making—he should not be asking how we would clean it up. The fact is this Government raised national insurance through the jobs tax, and that is why they have to put up council tax. The truth is that his catastrophic Budget has created a domino effect that he cannot now control. We on the Conservative Benches know that you cannot tax your way to growth, but now he is flirting—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all muttering, but I remember that Budget. They were laughing and cheering; they had no idea of the mess that they were creating. They should go and explain to their constituents why unemployment is going up.
What is more worrying is that now the Prime Minister is flirting with Neil Kinnock’s demand for a wealth tax. Let us be honest about what that means: it would be a tax on all our constituents’ savings, on their houses and on their pensions. It would be a tax on aspiration. Will the Prime Minister rule this out?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady says that we should not be asking them for advice on the economy. She is absolutely right about that; we will not be asking for their advice. What we did in the Budget was stabilise the economy through the measures taken by the Chancellor. What has that led to? Four interest rate cuts. For mortgage holders, that is hugely important. Compare and contrast that with what happened under the Liz Truss mini-Budget. We had the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year; wages were up more in the first 10 months of a Labour Government than in the 10 years under the Tories. So no, we do not need lessons from them.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he has stabilised the economy. Has he spoken to any farmers recently? It is time for him to take responsibility for the mess that he is making. He has been in office for a year, and all we see is him congratulating himself on what a fantastic job he has done. [Interruption.] Nobody out there believes it—not even Labour Members. What a weak cheer! He is congratulating himself, but we can compare records. He talks about the fastest growing economy. We left him the fastest growing economy of the G7. We cut the deficit in every year until the pandemic, and we got inflation down to 2%. On his watch, taxes are up, unemployment is up, inflation is up and this weak Prime Minister has been forced into a series of chaotic U-turns. Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that our economy is being eroded under Labour: doctors strikes; tax bombshells; the wealthy leaving in droves. Is it not the truth that, under him, he is dragging us back to the 1970s?
The Prime Minister
We are responsible for 4 million extra appointments in the NHS; we are responsible for a 10-year plan on the future of the NHS after the Conservatives broke it; we are also responsible for free school meals being rolled out in a way that has never been done by anybody—breakfast clubs being rolled out, family hubs being rolled out, transport across the country, and migration coming down. We take responsibility and we are proud of that.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that exciting proposal. He is a fantastic advocate for Portland and South Dorset. Eden Portland is a hugely exciting project. I cannot confirm funding allocations yet, but our £240 million growth mission fund should support transformative projects that give local leaders real investment to deliver real change. He makes a compelling case in relation to the fund.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about the horrifying terrorist bombing of 7/7 here in London? Our thoughts are with the victims, their families and our emergency services.
May I also join in sending condolences to the family of Lord Tebbit. He was a man of service—in the RAF, in politics and as a carer for his wife, Margaret. He will be greatly missed.
After years of Conservative neglect, the special educational needs system is in desperate need of repair, but with parents understandably worried, we already hear Labour MPs planning another rebellion, so may I make this offer to the Prime Minister? If he genuinely wants to fix the problem and not strip away the rights of children and parents in some cost-cutting exercise, we have 72 votes to help. Will the Prime Minister look at the five tests for SEND reform that we have published today and work with us to make it happen?
The Prime Minister
It is telling that when the right hon. Gentleman asks about the broken SEND system, the Tory Back Benchers laugh; that is how seriously they take their responsibility. It is an absolute shame. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every week in this House, Members raise the issue with me—I think it has been raised with me more times than anything else. Everyone knows that the SEND system is broken; guess who broke it, along with everything else? The system does not work for parents and it lets down children, so we need to reform and change it. It is not about saving money; we have already invested an additional £1 billion in SEND. It is about creating a new system that truly supports every child. We are developing proposals, and we want to work with parents and teachers to get this right. I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to welcome that.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. We want to work across the House to fix the mess that the Tories left, but we do not want another welfare-style mess this time; we have to fix the system properly for parents and children.
The Conservative Government badly undermined the security of our borders by ripping up the returns agreement that allowed us to send migrants back to Europe. I hope that the Prime Minister can secure a new returns agreement with France that acts as a real deterrent and stops the boats. The Conservatives also sent hundreds of millions of pounds to France and got nothing in return. Does the Prime Minister agree that any new funding to the French Government must be conditional on them agreeing a returns deal and doing their bit to stop the boats?
The Prime Minister
We are working closely with the French on this issue. We will only provide funding that delivers on our priorities. We are working together closely, and we share information to a much greater extent than was the case before. We have a new specialist intelligence unit at Dunkirk, and we are the first Government to persuade the French to review their laws and tactics on the north coast in order to take more effective action. I will be discussing this at meetings with President Macron today and tomorrow.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I hope it was heard by those on the Conservative Benches. It is an absolute scandal that failed personal protective equipment contracts were handed out by the Conservatives, costing taxpayers £1.4 billion. We are focused on getting our money back. I can confirm that the commissioner is now investigating fraud involving bounce back and business support loans, and we will continue to go after the fraudsters, grifters and con artists, no matter who they are or where we find them.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The main reason—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Some of you want to get in later. If this takes forever, you will not get in.
Nigel Farage
The main reason why that this country wisely voted for Brexit back in 2016, including millions of Labour supporters, is that we wanted to take back control of our borders, so that we alone decide who comes and settles in our country. Does the Prime Minister understand that this demand is even greater today than it was back in 2016, and that we demand—the country demands—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister understand that the country demands that he says to the French President that we will not accept undocumented males coming across the English channel, and that he is not dictated to by an increasingly arrogant, anti-Brexit French President?
The Prime Minister
We are fixing the mess that we inherited, and we are working with other countries to ensure that we take the measures necessary to stop people crossing the channel. They are serious answers to serious problems. For 10 years, the hon. Member’s proposal—the tail wagging the Tory dog—has been to break everything and claim that it is how you fix things, and to stick two fingers up at our neighbours and then expect them to work with us. He voted against the borders Bill, which gives more powers to our law enforcement to deal with security at our border. The reason for that is that he has no interest in fixing the problem; he wants to milk it and exploit it. That is the truth about him and his party.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have discussed this before; he is a brilliant champion for Exeter. Every child should have support to realise their potential. The Conservative party tore up Sure Start and took it out of our communities—an act of vandalism that abandoned families and deepened inequalities. We are delivering 1,000 Best Start family hubs across the country. That is in addition to free childcare being rolled out, and expanding free school meals. That is the change that a Labour Government make.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I am really not going to take advice from a party that put forward £80 billion of unfunded commitments at the last election; that is the sort of thing that got us into the problem in the first place. We cannot just tax our way to growth; we need to ensure that we put in place the necessary measures. We are putting in place planning reforms to drive growth. The hon. Member voted against that, and the Opposition voted against that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we will give 15 million workers—half of all workers—stronger rights at work. We are ensuring sick pay for up to 1.3 million of the lowest paid, tackling sexual harassment, and providing bereavement leave for families who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Compare that to the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that maternity pay is “excessive”, and the leader of Reform, who wants working people to pay tax so that there can be tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Both of them vote against reform and better protection of workers at every turn. They always have, and they always will. They offer nothing for working people.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
May I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the veterans here today, and all veterans? He knows that this is a serious issue, and the end of his question did not really reflect that seriousness. The scheme set up by the Conservative party was found to be unlawful in the courts, and he knows it. It was not supported by communities. It would have meant, as he knows, immunity from prosecution for those who committed the most appalling terrorist crimes, and that is why it did not have support in the communities or from any political party in Northern Ireland. That was among the reasons it was found to be unlawful.
We have to tread carefully, and we have to get this right. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman on that, but we do not get there by cheapening the debate. [Interruption.] This is not about political point-scoring. I have worked in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many of the people affected, and I know that we must get this right. I want to do so, and I want the House to do that together, if we possibly can, because it matters; but we have to do this in a serious way, and address the issues of the past in a way that has the support of victims and survivors. That is a key test for me, because without their support, it is very hard to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland. That is why we have to work in this way.
In advance of the new legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to engage with veterans and their communities to ensure that legacy mechanisms are fair, lawful and proportionate. I will continue to work with the right hon. Gentleman and others in the House, because the most important thing is not scoring points, but getting it right.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Conservative party failed to give children the support they need. The 10-year plan that we have put forward will rewire our NHS and transform mental health services, with 85 dedicated mental health A&E departments, giving 24/7 support; specialist mental health professionals in every school and college, benefiting 1 million young people this year alone; and an extra 8,500 mental health staff to tackle long waits. That is only possible because of the decisions that we took to invest in our NHS—decisions that the Conservatives opposed.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know it is of concern to her, and to many people across the House. The system we have is broken; it does not serve anyone well. We have to reform it, and I set out in an earlier answer the steps that we are taking. We will share those with the House, and I hope that we can get the greatest support possible for the reform that I think everybody here knows has to happen.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is so good to see a strong Labour MP standing up for Wales and her constituency. She makes her case; I cannot confirm the plans yet, but we will consider recommendations from the Burns commission, which includes a proposal for a new station in her constituency. I am delighted that just this week we set out our major road and rail schemes across the country, including the A66, the Newark bypass and the midlands rail hub, creating tens of thousands of jobs, new homes and better journeys for millions of travellers.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It is another shameful legacy of the Conservative party that one in four adults struggles with NHS care and that tooth decay is the most common reason for hospital admissions for children aged five to nine—that happened on their watch. We are fixing this, and I can set out what we are doing. We are rolling out 700,000 urgent and emergency appointments, reforming the dental contract, and recruiting more dentists and newly qualified dentists, who will practice in the NHS for a minimum period. All of that is made possible only by the investment we put in in the Budget, which the Conservatives all opposed.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. In March, we saw a major crackdown against criminals using high street businesses to launder money at almost 400 properties, which involved securing freezing orders over bank accounts totalling more than £1 million and arresting 35 individuals. There is much more to come, and I thank her for highlighting this really important issue.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are fixing the problem that they—[Interruption.] The Conservatives said they would take control of the borders and they lost it. We are working hard with our allies. We want to bring forward more powers for law enforcement on our borders, through our borders Bill, to give them the powers they need to take on the job and deal with the problem. And what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it—a confected argument.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Tomorrow evening sees the annual national police bravery awards. Three of the officers nominated this year are three of those who were first on the scene of the tragedy in my Southport constituency last summer. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Sergeant Gregory Gillespie, Constable Luke Holden and PCSO Timothy Parry, who are with us in the Gallery today, for their immense bravery in the face of evil? Does he agree that, just as our brave officers will always protect and defend us when we need them to, this Government will always support our brave officers in return?
The Prime Minister
Can I start by saying that the thoughts of the whole House are of course with the families of those who lost their little girls and with all those affected by this terrible incident? I would like to put on the record our heartfelt thanks to all those who responded and those who are with us today—Sergeant Gregory Gillespie, PC Luke Holden and PCSO Timothy Parry. These officers ran towards danger to protect young lives. I have met a number of them, and it is truly humbling to see the bravery and professionalism that they brought to their job that day and every day. Southport is a wonderful and loving community. In difficult days, they have shown kindness, empathy and courage. I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done in relation to those values.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this particular case, which saw a grave miscarriage of justice. The statutory test for compensation has been raised in the House before, and I have undertaken to look at it. I know he is working with the Minister responsible on the particular case he raises.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for leading from the front in promoting the importance of his role as a father and keeping time for family life. I am delighted that in the past week, the Government have launched a review into parental leave and started to rebuild the legacy of Sure Start by launching our Best Start family hubs. Both of those will make a huge difference to my constituents in Ribble Valley. Can he commit to the parental leave review creating some truly ambitious outcomes, so that we can make the UK not only a world-leading place to live and do business, but the best place in the world to live a rewarding family life?
The Prime Minister
The first full review of parental leave and pay is a landmark moment. The current system is simply out of date and too complicated. One in three dads do not take paternity leave, often because they cannot afford to do so. That is a great loss to them and their children. I want parents to be able to give their child the best care, and I want to make the system work better for employers.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Prime Minister
What an invitation! I am grateful for the invite to join the medieval festival, but if I wanted to see a load of people stuck in the past and fighting each other, I would probably go to the next meeting of the shadow Cabinet. I will consider it—thank you.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During PMQs, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) asked what I thought was quite a reasonable question. I knew what the question was going to be, but during PMQs, I could not hear a single word—like other Members in the Chamber, I am sure—because the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who is behind me, and others never shut up all the way through it. We in Reform UK do not subscribe to that sort of dog-whistle politics. Will you please advise us, Mr Speaker, of how to stop this behaviour in the future?
Mr Speaker
I think Mr Farage is capable of dealing with his own battles, as we have seen on many occasions. I would say that this is about the respect and tolerance that we should show each other. What we do in here is reflected outside, so please let us show common sense and respect for each other.
Adrian Ramsay
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed in response to my question that the Green party had made unfunded spending commitments in our general election manifesto. He also said that to me at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions. That is clearly untrue; our manifesto was fully costed, including through proposals for the wealth tax that I was calling for. Will you outline, Mr Speaker, how I might correct the record? Should I send a copy of our manifesto to the Prime Minister?
Mr Speaker
I will not continue the debate from Prime Minister’s questions, which I have ended. The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record with what he has stated, which is now on the record.
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown court bench division and related sentencing changes.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record and rising backlogs in our criminal courts, leaving victims in limbo as they wait to see justice done. For that reason, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a once-in-a-generation review of the criminal courts. We are grateful to Sir Brian for all his work. His report confirms that the system we inherited is broken, and that if we do nothing, it will collapse. We welcome the ambitious recommendations that he has put forward, and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action. We must consider any measures that will put our courts on a more stable and sustainable footing. Victims and the public deserve swift justice and a court system that they can have confidence in.
We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations on jury trials, along with everything else, before providing a formal response to Parliament in the autumn. Jury trials are and will remain a cornerstone of British justice, and will remain in place for the most serious cases. However, justice delayed is justice denied. The system was not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims wait years for justice. The Lord Chancellor and this Government are committed to turning the tide on the Crown court backlog by the end of this Parliament and creating a sustainable justice system fit for the 21st century.
Robert Jenrick
All of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is straightforward, but the Government have made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and accelerating, with 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson’s review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court sitting days. We thank him for his work and welcome many of his recommendations.
However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount to those convicted of crimes such as burglary and stalking. That could see criminals serve as little as a fifth of their sentence, when combined with the Gauke review—20% of a sentence served. Is that justice for victims? Out of court settlements for drug dealers and thieves mean that they will not even get a criminal record. It makes a mockery of the justice system.
Just as concerning is the proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases. The report admits that this will have only a “limited effect” on the backlog. It will save just £31 million—0.2% of the Department’s budget. As the report states, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether.
Jury trials have been a central part of our constitution for centuries—in Magna Carta, and indeed before it. They are a gift that we have given to the world. To throw them away so casually shows a total disregard for our constitution, and for such limited benefit. It seems that too many on the Government Benches want to scrap jury trials regardless of the backlog, because they do not trust the British public’s instincts on justice. They say that judges know best; we say that the public know best. It does not have to be this way. The Government must take up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of more sitting days. Will the Minister rule out yet another sentencing cut for criminals? Will she rule out letting drug dealers and thieves avoid even a criminal record? Does she accept that scrapping jury trials is a disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country’s proudest and most ancient liberties?
Sarah Sackman
What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It is extraordinary to hear that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency, but where was that sense of urgency in the past 14 years? The so-called party of law of order allowed two things to happen. First, it took our prison system to the brink of collapse. That let down the public, and it let down victims—soft on crime, and soft on law and order. Secondly, it allowed the backlogs in our Crown courts to run out of control to record highs.
For 14 years the Conservatives did absolutely nothing, so let me explain the contrast with a party and a Government who are gripping the crisis and who are tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own—Sir David Gauke—to give us his sentencing review. We commissioned one of our most revered judges, Sir Brian Leveson, who today has set out his recommendations. We will not provide our policy response today, because that demands and requires seriousness—not what we hear from the shadow Justice Secretary, but serious, careful analysis—and we will provide our formal response to the House in the autumn.
But we are not delaying. We are not waiting; we are investing in the system. To take up the challenge from the right hon. Gentleman about what the Lady Chief Justice said, we have already done what the previous Government failed to do, with an additional 4,000 Crown court sitting days and a record level of 110,000 sitting days a year—up from what the so-called party of law and order gave us. We also understand that we need proper system capacity. As we heard from the Lord Chancellor yesterday, this is not simply about adding more Crown court sitting days; as Sir Brian Leveson tells us—had the right hon. Gentleman bothered to read the report—we cannot simply sit our way out of this crisis.
We have to build system capacity—more judges, more prosecutors, more defence lawyers, and more court ushers. Of course we need to invest in the system, which is what the Government are doing with a promise of £450 million into our courts, additional to what the Conservative party provided. We are staying laser-focused on our mission, which is to provide swifter justice for victims, and restore public confidence in a justice system that was left to rack and ruin by the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun: we have been very clear that we are going to consider Sir Brian’s careful and detailed report, and we are going to listen to those who represent victims, and to the barristers and judges who do such an exceptional job. We will do what it takes for the victim who, if she reports a rape or serious crime, is told that she will have to wait until 2028, or 2029 in some cases, for her day in court. That is unacceptable, and that is why we will do whatever it takes, with the seriousness that the previous Government simply failed to have.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough. We need to consider once-in-a-generation structural reforms that will run a sustainable, proportionate system that will allow us to deliver swifter justice for victims. Investment and reform: that is what we will be getting on with and that is what we will report on in the autumn.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister will know the high regard in which I hold her. With that in mind, does she, in her own heart, believe that intermediate courts will fix the criminal court backlog, or does she agree with the legal profession that that risks being a costly distraction from investing in the existing system? Does she agree with me that chipping away jury trials in the name of speed risks undermining the cornerstone of British justice?
Sarah Sackman
As I said in my opening response, jury trials will remain a cornerstone for British justice for the most serious cases but, as Sir Brian Levenson evidences in his careful report, juryless trials can be swifter trials. To put that into context, 90% of criminal trials in this country are currently heard without a jury—that is how our criminal justice system currently functions. Of course it is right that we listen to those who participate in the system, whether they are prosecuting or defending those in the system, but it is also right that we listen to the voices who have welcomed today’s report: the head of the Met police, former Lord Chancellors, a former Lord Chief Justice and the Victims’ Commissioner. Their voices matter too. Just as Sir Brian has done, we need to consider a package of measures capable of alleviating the acute crisis in which we find ourselves.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that trial by jury is, and will always remain, a fundamental concept of our British justice system, but we also need to ensure that we restore victims’ faith in the system, and do what we can to ensure justice is not denied by justice being delayed?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice quotes Magna Carta, but the state’s obligation is to ensure a fair trial, and essential to a fair trial is timely justice. In circumstances where some victims of crime are waiting two or three years for their day in court, that is not fair. In fact, that is resulting in many victims pulling out of trials, rendering court time wasted and retraumatising those victims. What the shadow Secretary of State for Justice has not read is the entirety of Magna Carta. I quote:
“To no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a timely trial is embedded in Magna Carta, and we need to get back to delivering it.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In his urgent question, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said that “the public knows best”. For once, I agree with him, which is why the public threw out the last Conservative Government after they crashed our criminal justice system.
Yesterday, I made the case for safeguarding the guarantors of our justice system—our jury trials. However, today, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to raise our concerns that reclassifying certain offences and drawing on magistrates to run the new intermediate courts risks putting unbearable strain on the magistrates courts, jeopardising their ability to deliver swift justice, especially for survivors of domestic abuse crimes. Before adopting any new proposals, will the Minister publish an impact assessment of the measures on victims in magistrates courts, and will she rule out any measures that will delay justice, safety or freedom for survivors of domestic abuse?
Sarah Sackman
The proposal for the reclassification of certain offences in Sir Brian’s report is just that: it is Sir Brian’s recommendation. As I have said already, we need to take those recommendations away and consider whether they are appropriate for our justice system. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the essential role that the magistrates play in our criminal justice system. Currently, some 90% of criminal trials are heard in our magistrates courts and they do a phenomenal job. That is why we are continuing to recruit 2,000 magistrates annually and we want a more diverse magistracy—all of that will be essential. He is right that these proposals, which Sir Brian has conveyed as a package, need to interlock and to be operable together, so we are taking the summer to engage with stakeholders, such as the Magistrates’ Association, to ensure that we get this right.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
With the Crown court backlog that we inherited at such high levels, and continuing to rise, does the Minister agree that tackling it means not just adding more sitting days but making fundamental reform?
Sarah Sackman
The crisis that we inherited in our criminal courts, with record and rising backlogs, is intolerable. The human impact of that on people, whether they are victims, witnesses or they serve in the criminal justice system, is simply intolerable. If we do nothing, as the Conservative party was all too willing to do, the system will, in the words of one of its own, former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, become “irrecoverable”. It is not enough to sit our way out of this crisis—we must have radical structural reform as well. That is the abiding lesson of Sir Brian’s report, and we will take it on board.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.
Sarah Sackman
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson and his team for the comprehensive review that they have undertaken, to which the Government will be giving due consideration over the summer, before we formally provide our response. We have to ensure that whatever package of proposals we take forward knits together with the recommendations from the Gauke review and the outcome of the spending review that the Ministry of Justice has received, with a commitment to make an additional investment of £450 million in our courts. I want to address his point about intermediate courts: they are not about saving money, but about addressing the backlog, delivering swifter justice for victims and having a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence. If this package of ideas is right and will achieve that aim, we will pursue it.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I spent the first 20 years of my professional life in the criminal courts as a barrister. There is no one who loves the criminal justice system, or who has more respect for juries, than I do. However, the courts now are not what they were. The delays are so appalling that defendants just plead “not guilty”, because they know that their case will not come up for years, and the chances of actually facing justice are minimal. It is in that extreme state, which we have inherited from the Conservative Government, that radical action is needed. I know that my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench feel as I do about the criminal justice system and want it to work, so when they are looking at Sir Brian’s recommendations, will they consider a sunset clause? If his recommendations work, there will come a time when we can increase the amount of jury service again.
Sarah Sackman
My right hon. Friend speaks with huge authority and personal experience of how our Crown courts operate. Like us, she is committed to restoring and rebuilding our criminal justice system to what it once was, and to a system fit for the 21st century that the public can have confidence in. That means adapting our methods, taking on new technologies and becoming more efficient. All of that will come in the second part of Sir Brian’s review, as we have asked him to do. I will not pre-empty the response or give a running commentary on it, but all those things will be taken into account as we consider our response over the summer.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Last year, I was on a jury. We all know that we need to get the court backlog down, but my experience at Reading Crown court was that the availability of jurors really is not an issue. Many of us sat there for hours upon hours, and several jurors were dismissed on the Thursday, having never set foot in a courtroom. Before we restrict the number of jury trials, what work have the Government done to actually understand the utilisation of jurors to see how many are being used and whether they could be used more effectively?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all those who perform the civic duty of participating in a jury for their service. As I said, that will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious cases, but that is not the issue. The issue is that demand coming into the system simply outstrips the rate at which the courts are able to address and dispose of those cases. We need to look at the system capacity, the amount of judicial time, the number of prosecutors and defence lawyers, and the availability of suitable court buildings, ushers and criminal legal aid. We need all that system capacity, and we need to get it working together to address the challenges that others have outlined. I remind the hon. Gentleman that not only are 90% of our criminal trials heard in magistrates courts, but it remains a fact that magistrates courts deliver a turnaround of cases on average four or five times faster than in Crown courts. That is swift justice for victims, and that is why we need to look at whole-system reform.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents have a very simple view of the criminal justice system: they want to know that the victims of crime will have their day in court and that the perpetrators will have a punishment commensurate with the crime they commit. That underpins their faith in the system, so they come forward to report crime. While the Conservatives seek to talk down the justice system, will the Minister set out what she and her Department are doing to ensure that victims of crime feel confident enough to come forward to report crimes, hopeful that they will get the outcome they want?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend speaks so passionately on behalf of his constituents. I think the public ask for something really simple: if people are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime, they expect to have their day in court in a timely fashion, not to be made to wait for years, only to find that the trial has become ineffective and is put off for yet another year. That undermines faith in the system, and that is what is so detrimental about the neglect and under-investment under the Conservatives. That has been so corrosive of trust in the justice system. It is not simply that we are not delivering swift justice for victims; it is that the public risk losing faith in our justice system, which to date has been one of the glories of this country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the worst features of the US justice system is the extreme process of plea bargaining, which gives such a huge differential if somebody pleads guilty that it creates a perverse incentive to do so, even if they are innocent but not confident that they will be acquitted? Can she guarantee that we are not going down that route, with a 40% discount for pleading guilty coupled with early release for other reasons?
Sarah Sackman
English common law and our commitment to the rule of law with our independent judiciary are part of what make this country great. We are not going to ape the American system, or indeed any other system. We will look carefully at the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, including in relation to the use of Goodyear indications, but we know that our law is robust. Provided that we have a justice system that is up to the task of enforcing that law, that is what we are really focused on.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Under the Tories last year, 60% of rape victims dropped out of their cases because they were left waiting years for justice. We finally have a Justice Secretary who has put victims first and allocated the highest number of sitting days on record. Given all the outrage from the Conservatives at the size of the backlog, I am really keen to know what they did. Will the Minister answer what this Labour Government are doing to get justice for victims quicker?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk about sitting days and backlogs, and it can all sound a little arid and academic, but it comes back to people. The fact that so many victims of rape and serious sexual offences pull out of the process is testament to the fact that the system is not working. That is the direct consequence of allowing the backlogs to run out of control. We have to keep victims engaged in the process, which is why we have invested specifically in victims services and why we are looking to strengthen the victims code. Ultimately, victims want swift justice. That is why we will take a careful look at Sir Brian’s recommendations and do what it takes to bring down the backlog.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Magistrates courts are already under significant stress: some 22% of trials do not go ahead on the day that they are listed. Removing the right to choose a jury trial for sentences of under two years under an intermediate court cannot reverse years of underfunding, the closure of local courts and severe staff shortages, from prosecutors to defence advocates. The consultation on the reform of local justice areas proposes to merge three north Wales benches, against the advice of local magistrates. Does the Minister recognise the risk of yet further disruption to justice in Wales?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Lady has described how important the role of the magistrates courts will be and the importance of whole-system reform. The Government are not looking to tweak one aspect—to tweak what goes on in the magistrates court or the Crown court. One of the geniuses of the magistrates court is the local link and the fact that it delivers local justice, so we will look at that carefully, but there is no getting away from it: the scale of the problem, and what Sir Brian’s report tells us, means that we need whole-system reform of the criminal justice system, from beginning to end.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for the recognition of the importance of magistrates courts. Sadly, Harlow magistrates court was closed by the previous Government—as was Chorley magistrates court, of course. I recently spoke to a police officer in my constituency who has been a police officer for three years. He is being asked to gather evidence to go to court for crimes committed before he was even a police officer. Is it any wonder that victims have lost confidence in the system? This Government need to ensure that we have fundamental reforms to this process to ensure that people in my constituency get the justice they deserve.
Sarah Sackman
I come back to the fact that this Government are investing in our court estate. We have invested an additional £20 million in our court buildings for maintenance and to keep the show on the road, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the delays will reach a tipping point if we choose to do nothing about them, and that is simply not an option. The obligation on the state is to deliver a fair trial, and timeliness is critical to that. The longer the wait, the more likely it is that victims will pull out of the system and that the evidence becomes undermined, because people’s memories fade. That is why timeliness and getting the delays down is so critical to the mission we have to pursue.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Here we go again. Labour always talks tough on crime and always goes soft. The Minister talked about David Gauke as one of our own, as if that was some defence—I assure her that I probably have more in common with her than I do with David Gauke. That is not a good way to show off credentials on being tough on crime. I have seen at first hand where the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to cut through all the bureaucracy and backlogs to get tough on crime. In Lancashire, 23 organised crime gang members were being taken off the streets every single week through Op Warrior, with many remanded straight into prison and their cases going through the courts. I plead with the Minister to rule out as soon as possible any of the measures recommended that would see those organised crime gang members potentially not even getting a criminal record.
Sarah Sackman
It is a bit rich to accuse those on the Government Benches of being soft on crime. The hon. Gentleman’s party allowed the prisons to run hot and added 500 prison places in 14 years—we have committed the money for 14,000. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Conservatives allowed the backlogs in the courts to simply run out of control, to the point where Alex Chalk—again, another of their own—pointed out that the position would become irrecoverable. That is the consequence of doing nothing. Being tough on crime is about rebuilding and investing in our criminal justice system, investing in prisons and our courts, delivering on the tough reforms that will be required to deliver swifter justice for victims and getting tough on exactly the sorts of gangs that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
After 14 years of Conservative government, victims of rape and serious sexual crimes are waiting years to see justice. It appears that the shadow Justice Secretary has recently discovered that our criminal justice system is broken. When does the Minister think he will discover who broke it?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stuart, I do not need any challenges from you. You should know better; you are on the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs. You really do have to think about what you are saying. Your behaviour is getting intolerable.
Sarah Sackman
When the Victims’ Commissioner, the London Victims’ Commissioner and those who engage and support victims through victim services tell me that we have to take this opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform, because we are letting victims of crimes down, I take that more seriously than any other pleas for change. It is absolutely obvious that the delays from running a system with such record and rising backlogs and the failure to invest have real consequences for people’s lives. People are pulling out of the system and out of the process because they have simply lost faith in it. I will be thinking of their voices—of the victims—every day that we consider these proposals and drive them forward. Failure is not an option.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I have caution about stripping back jury trials, so I ask the Government to commit to tackling court backlogs by investing in more court capacity, particularly in Bristol and the west country, by supporting rehabilitation to stop reoffending and people coming back into the system so quickly, and by addressing the root causes of crime. Will the Minister consider that under the Leveson proposals, there may be space for some of the best examples of the US courts system? Some states have next-day hearings for domestic abuse cases, where courts can catch perpetrators in the window of remorse, when they will recognise their guilt and accept that they need to change.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is right that as we take forward and are ready to announce the package of reforms in response to Sir Brian’s review, we will consider how we can take forward the best of our existing system and, indeed, learn from other systems. Whether that is intensive supervision courts, where we have seen some good results, or tackling the root causes that lie behind crime and engaging in preventive measures, we should be doing all that. This is our opportunity. We have reached a point of crisis. We have reached the point of emergency—no more, no less—as a result of the inheritance from the previous Government, but we have got to take the opportunity to build back better, with a more sustainable and more innovative justice system that the public can have confidence in and that protects the public. That is what we must do. The hon. Member is right: we should learn, we should listen and we should build something better.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
As I think Members across the House would agree, Alex Chalk, the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, was taken seriously in this place, as were his opinions. He recently said that some cases
“could conceivably be dealt with by a judge and two wingers, so reserve the Crown court for the most serious cases… It is helpful to look at which cases should be triable either way and which should be summary only.”
Does the Minister agree that it is worth taking note of serious voices like Alex Chalk, rather than the opportunism of the shadow Justice Secretary?
Sarah Sackman
This issue is far too serious not to take seriously. I listen to voices, such as those of the former Lord Chancellor, former Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, the Victims’ Commissioner and Sir Mark Rowley. They are all saying that we have got to take these matters and these recommendations seriously. It is that serious work that this Government will engage in, and we will not duck the difficult decisions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister rightly points to the comparative inefficiency between Crown courts and magistrates courts. The clear issue is that we need new technology to be introduced to Crown courts, so that people who are on trial and victims are served faster, quicker and more expediently. The reality is that many cases collapse as a result of the evidence not being sufficient or brought fast enough. Why, then, has the Minister allowed the efficiencies part of the Leveson report to be delayed? That could bring forward much-needed recommendations that we could action to cut the backlog.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member raises an extremely helpful point, which is about how we can improve efficiency in our courts through the use of technology, including technology that is improving rapidly before our eyes. For example, the Ministry of Justice is piloting the use of AI technology in some of our tribunals for transcription. How could that be utilised and rolled out more widely across courts and tribunals? He is absolutely right, but Sir Brian and his team, to give them their credit, have worked incredibly fast to produce a detailed, careful and well-evidenced report today. He will continue with part 2 of his review. Our job in the Ministry of Justice, as we develop our policy thinking, will be to bring those two parts of the review together to improve our criminal justice system.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Some may say we are old school in South Norfolk, but I call it common sense. Criminals should be punished and victims should get their day of justice. Simply hoping that more sitting days will fix the Crown court backlog is not realistic, so I urge the Minister to be radical and ensure that offenders are punished and victims get their day in court.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Has the hon. Member actually read it?
Sarah Sackman
I can tell that my hon. Friend has taken the liberty of actually reading the report, because he has identified the central premise and argument that Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, makes in it, which is this: we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis we have inherited. We need to carefully consider once-in-a-generation structural reform. We have got to combine that with investment, too, which this Government are already doing with the 4,000 additional sitting days that we have added, over and above what the previous Government agreed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about investment plus reform.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that changes to fundamental rights, such as trial by jury, in one part of the United Kingdom could create serious divergence across jurisdictions and raise questions about equal access to justice for citizens in Northern Ireland?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member well knows, justice is a devolved matter, and it is right that decisions involving justice are taken at the correct level, but I assure her and the rest of the House that the state’s obligation to provide a fair trial is paramount. Whether, as is currently the case, someone’s case is heard in the magistrates court without a jury, or whether, as for the most serious cases—and as will continue to be the case—a case is heard with a jury, the point is that the state must deliver a fair trial. The question of equal access to justice therefore simply will not arise.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Yesterday, the Bar Council facilitated a useful conversation with local barristers in the south-west. I think they have some reservations, but I will leave them to make representations. One thing that they did say, which I urge the Minister to feed into the provisions of the second half of the report, is about the efficiency of the forensics service and the transfer mechanism to bring prisoners into the courts. The delays and inefficiencies there, and the contracts that are laid that set out those services, can have a material impact on the efficiency of the court service. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is focused on, because that could have a massive impact. I have grave concerns about where things are.
Finally, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I allowed—against advice—Alex Chalk and his predecessor to make some capital-to-revenue switches in their budgets to deal with the urgency of this problem. I hope that is helpful to the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury going forward.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful and constructive contribution. We are talking about a system that has so many moving parts, and that is why we will not give an instant response to Sir Brian’s review or to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. It is clear that we have got to get the whole system working.
In that vein, let me address our professions and our criminal Bar, who do a sterling job. I have engaged closely with the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, and we need to do this in collaboration with them. It will be a team effort to rebuild our criminal justice system, and we will continue to engage over the summer as we bring together the necessary reforms to bring down the backlogs and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I sympathise with the Minister’s frustration at the Tories’ brass neck. There is clearly a crisis in the criminal justice system, and it is clearly of their making. However, rather than undermining the jury system, we need to invest in our courts. Does the Minister agree that this is all about priorities? Is she going to use her limited budget to build more prisons and simply produce more prisoners, or use that limited money to invest in the criminal justice system and restorative justice?
Sarah Sackman
As I have made clear, we are investing in prison places. Only 500 were added in 14 years under the last Government, but we have committed money to the building of 14,000 new prison places as well as comprehensive sentencing reform. We have also committed £450 million to investment in our courts, whether it is used for court maintenance, additional funds for criminal legal aid, or additional—and now record—Crown court sitting days. However, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, that is insufficient. That alone will not see a reduction in the delays affecting the victims about whom we have heard so much today. We must do what it takes, which necessitates both investment, which we are already beginning to make, and reform.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
As a member of the Bar, I say this plainly: removing the right to jury trials is a reckless constitutional shortcut. As the Criminal Bar Association puts it, is not reform but retreat. Does the Minister agree that the right to choose between a jury and a judge-led trial must never be denied, and that the real solution lies in investing in the system that we have rather than dismantling its very foundations?
Sarah Sackman
I respect the hon. Gentleman as a fellow member of the Bar, but I also respect the views of Sir Brian Leveson, the Lord Chief Justice, the former Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, and many other august legal minds who have themselves done so much to preserve our fundamental constitutional principles. What they understand is this: 90% of our current criminal trials do not take place with a jury, but what really is unfair, and what really does undermine fundamental constitutional rights, is a failure to deliver a timely trial. If the hon. Gentleman is asking victims of crime, or even those wrongly accused of a crime who want to clear their names, to wait two or three years for their day in court, that, I believe, is a denial of a constitutional right.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his work and applaud all efforts to speed up the system, but what reassurance can the Minister give my constituents, who will see a reduction in access to jury trial as the beginning of a slippery edge leading to an ever greater erosion of one of the fundamental liberties and glories of this country?
Sarah Sackman
We are not setting out our policy response to the specific recommendations in Sir Brian’s review today. What we are recognising is his central thesis, which is that at present victims, including those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, are being thoroughly let down by the delays that were allowed to accrue by his own party. With that in mind, I think it is clear that what we have to do is continue to make the record investment that we are already making, but combine it with structural reform—a package of reforms—that will not only drive efficiency but, fundamentally, deliver the swifter justice for victims that I believe we all wish to see.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I share the concern about delays in justice—no rape victims should ever have to wait five years for their day in court—but I am seriously concerned about the limiting of trial by jury and how it could dent confidence. As the Minister considers these reforms over the summer, will she please give some thought to more serious investment in rehabilitation and resettlement work? The LandWorks project in my constituency has a reoffending rate of 5%. If we could roll out that type of work, we would reduce crime, which would relieve backlogs in the courts, and everyone could have their day in court more quickly.
Sarah Sackman
The holistic type of support involving the preventive interventions that the hon. Lady has described is exactly the sort of provision that we are considering, in combination with the investment and structural reforms that will also be needed. I know that my colleague in the other place, the Prisons Minister, is taking on board precisely that sort of package of rehabilitation models so that we can break this endless cycle of reoffending.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Over the weekend the Prime Minister rather pathetically told the BBC that he was “a hard bastard”. I think members of the public would find it surprising that letting criminals out of prison early is a way of showing that he is.
The Minister has said, not unreasonably, that she wants time to consider Sir Brian’s recommendations, but it is the case that some things are clearcut. Will she take this opportunity to rule out reducing sentences by 40% for criminals who plead guilty?
Sarah Sackman
I think that the Prime Minister probably is a hard bastard, and I think that we on this side of the House are tough on law and order. We would never allow what the Conservative party allowed to happen, running our prisons to the brink of collapse. At the point when we inherited the prison system, there were simply not enough places for us to lock up some of the most serious and dangerous criminals who had perpetrated crimes in this country. It is absolutely scandalous. What we are going to do—as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out—is engage in the serious business of developing policy and of government. We are going to consider the detailed policy recommendations, and of course we must consider how they interact with David Gauke’s recommendations: it must be knitted together, and it must be appropriate to deliver swifter justice for victims and to protect the public.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Jury trial has been deeply embedded in the British psyche and, indeed, in our constitution since Henry II, who introduced it in order to deal fairly with land disputes. It is also embedded in the United States constitution through the sixth amendment, to protect against biased judges and oppressive prosecutions and to safeguard individual liberties. I have severe doubts about our judiciary at the moment—I am not sure that it is going in the right direction—and when I read the “Adult Court Bench Book”, it gives me even greater concern. As the Minister probably knows, jury trial is already under threat in defamation cases. I have three questions. Why do the Government appear to be so terrified of decent British people sitting on juries? Are the Government intent on further undermining jury trial. If they are, in any way, will they please undertake to hold a full debate in the House before it happens?
Sarah Sackman
If the hon. Gentleman had heard my earlier answers, he would know that I made it clear that jury trial would remain a cornerstone of British justice in the most serious cases. In his review, Sir Brian Leveson considers whether a jury trial is appropriate and proportionate when it comes to, for example, some of the most complex fraud cases. He also considers whether it is proportionate when, say, someone has stolen a bottle of whisky. Is it appropriate to hold a full jury trial, with all the expense and delay involved, when it means that someone who is, perhaps, a victim of rape is waiting two or three years for their day in court, or, indeed, that that day will never come? However, as I said at the start, what I can undertake to do is this: when we are ready with our package of reforms and our response to the review, we will return to the House and a full debate can be had.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The jury system is essential to protect us against oppressive judges, malicious individuals—sometimes malicious police officers—or even Governments. The Minister speaks of the most serious cases. Is it not a fact that the most serious impact on individuals may result not necessarily from what she may regard as the most serious cases, but from any case that goes to court? The impact on the individual can totally change the course of that person’s life, even if the charge is not as serious as the Minister might consider it to be. It can be devastating to the person’s family life, career, or any other aspect of his or her future.
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I said earlier, 90% of cases in this country already happen without a jury, and no one says that that is not delivering justice of the highest robustness and integrity. Let me pick up his comment, and indeed earlier comments, denigrating the integrity and independence of our judiciary. Members will not hear that sort of criticism from this side of the House. Our judiciary is, in fact, one of the prides of this country. It is why people so respect the rule of law, and why the United Kingdom is such a great place in which to do business. I will not talk the judiciary down. We need them and we respect them, and on this side of the House we will adhere to that.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Justice Secretary talks about the need to expedite trials for the sake of victims of crime, and she is absolutely right. As she considers the proposals from Sir Brian Leveson, will she take into account those who are innocent and who stand wrongly accused, who are having to wait anxiously for years for their day in court?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Our focus is on victims of crime, who in some cases are waiting years for their day in court, but on the other side of the coin, defendants who are accused of a crime—perhaps wrongly—are waiting to clear their name. That can have a devastating effect. What he describes is the human impact of the delays that have accrued as a result of the backlogs that we inherited from the Conservative party.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
As a barrister working in criminal courts, I have often addressed the jury in closing speeches by saying, “Members of the jury, we have the best legal system in the world, and it is the best because you make it so. You bring your wisdom, your life experiences and your common sense, and you apply it to the facts in this case. Before you decide a verdict of guilty, bear in mind that if you or a member of your family were sat in the defendant’s seat, you would need to be sure before you returned a verdict of guilty. As a peer, that is an obligation on you.” I get the Minister’s point that justice delayed is justice denied, but equally, there is the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Sir Brian Leveson has been given a basic mandate that we need to speed up jury trials, which will eliminate the fundamental principles and the cornerstone of our legal system. Does the Minister agree with that?
Sarah Sackman
As I have said, the jury trial will remain a cornerstone and pillar of our justice system in the most serious cases, but what Sir Brian Leveson tells us in the opening pages of his report is that the current system is broken, and he uses the word “essential”. He says reform of the system will be essential, because although we rightly take pride in the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, the fact is that it is simply not working at the moment. It is letting down those whom it is intended to serve and those who serve within the system, and we have to fix that. We will take our time, and then we will act on the programme of reforms that Sir Brian Leveson has recommended today.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
For over 50 years in Northern Ireland, we have had judge-only trials in terrorist cases, probably for understandable reasons. All non-terrorist cases have been jury trials. In my professional life at both the junior and the senior Bar, I have practised before all those courts, and my experience firmly confirms to me that public confidence is most attainable when we have jury trials. Irrespective of how cautious and diligent a judge is, they can get case-hardened, and that is the source of why public confidence rests most in the jury system. Does the Minister agree that the key determinant in retaining jury trial is whether an offence is indictable or not? If it is an indictable offence, the first port of call must be a jury trial.
Sarah Sackman
I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s wealth of experience before our different sorts of courts, but I also respect the wealth of experience that Sir Brian Leveson has brought to bear in his review. He identifies that although a jury trial will always be appropriate for certain cases—not least for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined—we have to take a proportionate response. If we offered jury trials in all sorts of cases, certain victims and defendants would have to wait far too long for their day in court. As it stands, the vast majority—90%—of criminal trials in this country already happen without a jury. We have to consider very carefully where to draw the line, and that is what the Government will be doing this summer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is held in the highest esteem by all of us in this Chamber—that is never in doubt. The British justice system is the envy of the world, and it probably set the example for justice systems everywhere. I pose my question with the utmost respect. The Minister will understand Members’ reluctance to restrict the right to a jury of one’s peers, and to replace a multi-person jury with a judge-only trial. Does she not believe that we must look at extending court days and at other interim measures, rather than changing the course of justice, which has served us well and which most democracies base their justice system on?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman will know that the respect across this House is absolutely reciprocated. Rather than sitting idly, we have taken on the challenge of increasing investment to deliver a record number of Crown court sitting days—4,000 sitting days above the level agreed by the previous Government. We have increased investment in our criminal legal aid system to build capacity, so that we can man all the additional trials and meet the demands on the system. However, the clear lesson from Sir Brian’s report and the key conclusion that he has delivered today, which we will take firmly on board, is that continuing to try to sit our way out of the crisis is not sufficient. It is essential that we make reforms as well, and we will take the time necessary to consider what that looks like.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers will be aware that I have raised concerns about the treatment and detention of Lee Stinton, a British national and the son of Elaine and Edward Stinton, who are my constituents in Lagan Valley. He was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement while travelling to work in Key West, Florida. He has built a life for himself there, but that has all come to an end in the most awful of circumstances at Krome detention centre. I am grateful for the support offered to date by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Are Ministers seeking to make a statement on this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful for advance notice of that point of order. I have not been made aware of any request for a statement, but the hon. Member has put her concerns on the record.
Schools (Allergy Safety)
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberSchools (Allergy Safety) Bill 2024-26 View all Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to maintain an allergy management policy; to require schools to hold a supply of adrenaline auto-injectors for treating allergic reactions and anaphylaxis; to require allergy training for staff in schools; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful to the Minister for being in his place and for his constant dialogue on this issue. As he knows, I am not the first to raise the inadequacies of our current laws on protecting children with allergies in our schools. Many hon. Members from across this House have spoken on the issue, yet horrific incidents and countless near misses continue.
Many of us have experience of allergies, and one in three people in the UK now lives with an allergic disease. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have risen by 160% in the past 20 years, and 50% of children are now affected by at least one allergic condition. Every year, approximately 43,000 cases of childhood allergies require care. Studies show that the incidence of food allergies in England nearly doubled between 2008 and 2018, with a prevalence of 4% among pre-school children.
At school, food allergies affect around two children in every classroom. Children spend a significant amount of their lives at school, and 80% of food allergy reactions happen there, including a quarter of first-time anaphylactic reactions. Many children who have had prior severe reactions are not prescribed their auto-injector, and many first-time reactions occur at school, so relying solely on children carrying pre-prepared medication is dangerous.
With an ever-growing number of children requiring allergy care, it has never been more vital that the place we entrust with the care of our children—the school where we drop them off every day—is a safe and secure environment, but too often it is not. I cannot comprehend the pain that some families have had to endure because they have lost a child, and as a father I hope never to experience that grief, but when current guidance and legislation allow a patchwork of different standards in our schools, we can and must do better.
There is a glaring lack of consistency across schools in the UK in allergy management. There is a 50:50 chance that the school someone’s child goes to will have a spare adrenalin auto-injector pen available. There is a 55% chance that no training has been provided to staff on managing allergies in school or on trips, and there is a one in four chance that staff have had no training on how to identify allergy symptoms or what to do in an emergency. Furthermore, there is a one in six chance that a school does not have an individual health care plan for pupils with allergies, and a one in three chance that a school does not have an allergy policy at all. There is also a one in three chance that near misses of allergy incidents are not recorded anywhere.
With the prevalence of allergies rising and a steep increase in hospitalisations due to allergic reactions, we must act to change this unacceptable status quo. School staff deserve to know how to prevent allergic reactions, and be prepared to manage them if a horrendous incident occurs. Children deserve to learn in a safe and inclusive environment, and parents deserve the confidence to send their children to school knowing that adequate measures are in place.
The Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill would require all schools to have an allergy policy in place. Currently, 70% of schools lack basic protections, and one in three schools has no allergy policy in place. Introducing these policies would create a whole-school approach to allergy safety, making it everyone’s responsibility to embed good allergy practices and know their role in protecting children. This would include how to manage allergies on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, playgrounds and dining rooms, ensuring that children with allergies are not excluded but supported in an inclusive school environment.
Without these policies, children with allergies often miss out on opportunities. The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation found that 70% of parents reported that their allergic child had missed school due to their allergy, sometimes driven by anxiety. Children should never miss learning opportunities out of fear, and this Bill can help change that.
Alongside allergy policies, the Bill requires allergy training for school staff, enabling them to create a safe environment. Research from NASUWT and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation shows that 67% of school staff have not received any allergy awareness training. The Bill would provide guidance on adapting classroom practices to reduce risk, ensuring safe and inclusive activities, understanding the mental health impacts of food allergies and how to respond in such emergencies.
This Bill also mandates that schools carry spare adrenalin auto-injectors, so that if a reaction occurs, staff have both the medication and training to take swift action. When every second counts, this simple step could be lifesaving. Auto-injectors should be treated like defibrillators: they should be accessible, and accompanied by a trained member of staff.
Although there are examples of good practice, without a national framework it is a postcode lottery whether a child will attend a school where there are staff with adequate training, and policies and vital medication. This inequality leads to missed school days, unnecessary emergency visits, bullying and lower attainment. Providing spare pens, training and policies for every school removes that lottery. Safety should not depend on a child’s location or their family’s income.
The current legislation is insufficient. Schools in England follow statutory guidance, such as “Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions” and the “Early years foundation stage statutory framework”, but neither explicitly mandates safeguards for pupils with allergies. The Benedict Blythe Foundation highlights that this lack of clear expectation leads to wide variations in allergy safety across the country.
The three pillars of this Bill—staff training, allergy policies and spare adrenalin auto-injectors—can save lives. These recommendations come from coroners’ reports after tragic incidents. We must learn and fill these gaps to create a fairer, safer school experience for all children. Too many teachers lack the knowledge they need and do not have the support they deserve, and too many children with allergies are still not offered a safe, fit-for-purpose environment in which to learn. I hope that today, after an awful lot of talking, we can get on with the doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Bloore, Tahir Ali, Sarah Coombes, Cat Eccles, Sarah Edwards, Amanda Hack, Becky Gittins, Jodie Gosling, Leigh Ingham, Alicia Kearns, Dave Robertson and Gareth Snell present the Bill.
Chris Bloore accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 282).
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 59(2)),
That the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUniversal Credit Bill 2024-26 View all Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
18:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 35 / Noes: 469 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 103 / Noes: 416 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 370 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 135 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 401 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 443 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:25 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 149 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman—or, for Sir Roger, Mr Chairman—are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Standard allowance for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.”
This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 41, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section, so far as it relates to tax years up to and including 2027-28, comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2028-29, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2027, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(11) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2029-30, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(12) Regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2028, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment provides for separate decisions by the House of Commons on the continued effect of Clause 1 for the final two tax years affected.
Amendment 50, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section comes into force when the conditions in section [Commencement requirements relating to welfare reform] have been met.”
This amendment makes the commencement of Clause 1 conditional on the requirements relating to welfare reform set out in NC12.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In the table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (amounts of elements)—
(a) before the row showing the amount for limited capability for work and work-related activity (“the existing row”) insert—
Siân Berry
When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.
From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill.
Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for the proposals that she is bringing forward. This is the crux of the Bill. Does she accept that the reason why people get more money when they qualify for the health element of universal credit is that their illness means more expenditure—a certain diet, the need for a warmer home, and so on? Does she accept that halving it to £217 a month will detrimentally affect the most vulnerable people—the very people she says we should be trying to help?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them.
My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state:
“The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.”
Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations.
I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked
“why impoverishing”
disabled people
“to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]
The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option.
There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I am a great believer in a wealth tax, rather than taking money from disabled people—simple as, bottom line. What would a wealth tax look like, as far as the Green party is concerned?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle.
Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes.
A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose.
The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I fully agree with the hon. Member on co-production and co-designing any changes that come forward. Does she agree that it is crucial that young people are also included, given the conditions that they can face, and especially given the challenge in moving from children’s disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which the Minister has still not addressed?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard.
The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security.
I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will speak to my amendment 2(b) and the amendments associated with it. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I thank the Bill Committee Clerks for their invaluable advice and amendment-drafting expertise. I thank the dozens of disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, academics and think-tanks who provided evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee’s “Pathways to Work” inquiry. I also acknowledge the Clerks team, and in particular the deputy Clerk, who led that inquiry. The role of Select Committees in improving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be overestimated.
As I said last week, there is general recognition that the social security system needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts to the support for vulnerable people. There are many positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper that will have a significant positive impact on people’s lives, and that will help people into work, and to stay in work.
However, there is also evidence of the impact other Departments will have on getting and keeping Britain working. Increasing NHS capacity and the funding allocation to areas of high health need will have a direct and positive impact on health status, participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in those areas. The 2018 “Health for Wealth” report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting that at areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3% and increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year. However, although we have launched the NHS 10-year plan, which contains many positive measures, the additional targeted NHS capacity will not come on stream until April next year.
Jim Shannon
One issue that I hear about—like other Members, I am sure—is the decisions made on PIP, universal credit and ESA applications. Constituents tell me continually that there is a harshness in how those decisions are made. Does the hon. Lady agree that those applications should be looked at by experts, and that there should be compassion and understanding when the decisions are made? Does she agree that that is the sort of system we need for the people we represent?
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that we need a more compassionate system, but I also believe we need a system that is co-produced by the people who will actually be affected by a new assessment process. Yes, we need a system that is more compassionate, but I think that that will be built in by the people who co-produce the new assessment.
I was a little disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to include the co-production of the review in the Bill. I hope the Minister will address that in his remarks, but for that reason I support new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
In addition, the Government have agreed to protect people on UC health with severe conditions or a terminal diagnosis—both existing and new claimants—and to ensure that their awards will be uprated annually in real terms.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome some of the last-minute concessions that were made last week. Does she share my concerns, in particular around UC health, that there are still £2 billion in cuts that will impact more than 700,000 people, meaning that they will get £3,000 less? These are some of the most vulnerable people.
Debbie Abrahams
Let us be clear: this will apply to newly acquired conditions in particular. My argument is that by delaying the changes, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability or condition can receive treatment and care quickly by making sure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. I do not think it is ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and I hope the Government will listen.
As I said, people with both new and existing severe conditions will be protected. This, I understand, is covered in Government amendment 2 and new clause 1.
There is significant evidence of the harms that disabled people would potentially have experienced if the Bill had remained in its previous form, but the concessions that have been made over the past couple of weeks have addressed that. I applaud the Government for that; it was definitely the right thing to do when the evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer term, it is right that we think again, and Iusb therefore urge the Government to consider my amendments.
There is strong evidence that the Government will make savings in social security spending in the long term through case off-flows. As I have mentioned before, that will be achieved naturally through the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market and, of course, the bringing forward of the employment support.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook.
Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.
Graham Stuart
As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.
Graham Stuart
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges.
Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for support, sometimes for nearly two years, which worsens their condition and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work? That also leads to an increased demand on PIP.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We on the Conservative Benches know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, is not generous and is not kind, but is an abrogation of responsibility and economic negligence.
Let me be clear: this Bill in its current form locks in billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year. Under the current Chancellor, we have already seen Britain’s debt interest forecast soar and the bond markets become jittery—more than that, they are charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which Labour Members so love to refer. And inflation, of course, has proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment, with no plan to pay for it except reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. The Chancellor might not say it outright, but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this ends up—with them paying more.
The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning his way throughout his time in office, but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister bending to pressure from the left of his party, which is so well represented on the Government Benches today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting Government who have lost all propulsion.
Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy—or fixing the foundations, as has oft been repeated—Labour has chosen the easy political route of higher spending, higher borrowing and, inevitably, higher taxes. Those higher taxes will be imposed not on some mythical class of super-rich people, which the Greens like to propose, but on ordinary men and women who get up in the morning, work hard, look after themselves and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives. That also needs to be a central tenet of our political lives.
That is why I have tabled two amendments to the Bill. Amendment 41 would ensure that Parliament retains control over future annual above-inflation increases. It would mean that the House of Commons must explicitly approve continuing those rates beyond 2027-28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. New clause 9 would require the Government to report on fraud and error arising from these provisions.
Graham Stuart
Given the scale of welfare fraud that we have seen in recent years—it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 billion—it is only right that we get a proper handle on where taxpayers’ money is actually going.
Graham Stuart
I would happily give way if there were Labour Members who had an interest in controlling the public finances rather than running up the national credit card irresponsibly, which is their wont. Those efforts by the Front-Bench team have now come to nought. They have given in to their Back Benchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this Government. Together, these straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse would help reduce waste and misuse.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout and scream in frustration, but they will have their time to speak. In reality, this is not a fair and measured Bill. It achieves nothing but a two-tier benefit system, unfunded spending commitments and, ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way on that point about fraud?
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.
Neil Coyle
I am really intrigued, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the right hon. Member suggested that he has a concern about tackling fraud and responsibility in public finances. Can he tell us where he was under the previous Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of the UK’s social security system? Where are his references in Hansard? Where was he on Bill Committees and in this House when that fraud was soaring? And where was he when this Government began passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of irresponsible fraud in the benefit system?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots.
Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The right hon. Member is right to bring his speech back to the vulnerable people who will be impacted. He will know the devastating impact of cancer on many families. One in two face the reality of a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer has said that, on average, the disease costs £700 a month and £6,000 in annual income. Does he agree that the Bill, by ensuring that those people do not get the high rate universal credit health element, will be devastating for many cancer patients right across the country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy.
The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.
Patricia Ferguson
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is for me to decide what my intervention will be. I was going to say that I am very pleased to hear him sticking up for people who really need help. What part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government.
When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% disability employment gap, a 17% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling the last Government over the first half of their decade that they failed on almost every single commitment in the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.
If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.
The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We know that when people’s mental health declines because of stresses and strains, it pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not the objective of “Pathways to Work” or this Government. It would be detrimental to people and our ambition.
That pittance of £50 a week will hit the budgets of individuals who have so little given that we have rising energy and food prices and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling and surviving. All they could expect is poverty to bite harder, stress to spread wider and hope to fade faster. For many with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a powerful and compassionate speech. I recently knocked on the door of one of my constituents who suffers from fibromyalgia, and it happened to be the day that she received a letter telling her that she was expected to up her working hours by six hours following an assessment. She was broken by this news, and exactly the kind of mental distress that the hon. Member is referring to was evident to me. Does the hon. Member agree that whatever reforms we introduce must put compassion and care for individuals at the heart of the assessment system, so that people, particularly those with fluctuating conditions, do not experience the kind of distress that I witnessed that day from my constituent?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Member advocates powerfully for his constituent and all those with fluctuating conditions, who never know how they will fare, perhaps because of the season of the year. Some people may develop more chest infections over the winter while being well for the rest of the year, yet they will be receiving a health element of just £50 a week, not £97 a week.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Will my hon. Friend recognise how the Bill protects people in exactly the situation that she describes? Those who receive the universal credit health premium at the moment will be fully protected, and once they go into work they are likely to continue to receive universal credit, so their protection will carry on. If their income exceeds the universal credit level, there will be a further six months when they are earning at a significant level when if they come out of work afterwards they will come straight back on to the position they were in at the start. There are very strong protections for exactly the people she is describing.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week.
My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support.
I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are at a really interesting point with this Bill: a year’s worth of politics happened last week, and it feels like there is more to come. Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I begin by thanking all the disabled people’s organisations who have worked incredibly hard and assisted us in winning some concessions. No matter where we end up, they should be incredibly proud of the work they have put in, as should the disabled people already receiving PIP and the universal credit limited capability for work element who have continued to fight on behalf of future claimants even though they have no selfish need to do so. That shows the strength of the community and the amount that disabled people care for each other.
It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in a group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour Government. Given the change promised by Ministers, that first change should not have been to attack older people by cutting the winter fuel payment. The Government have also refused to take action on child poverty by bringing forward the child poverty strategy, and now they are balancing the Budget by cutting money from disabled people.
This is not the Labour party that I wrote about in my history Highers—I wrote about the rise of the Labour party, what it was founded on, and how the whole point of it was about supporting people and the principles of the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour Government would look like. I had hoped that they would actually deliver for some people—for disabled people and those the Tories spent 14 years marginalising—yet they are choosing to make the easy cuts that affect disabled people. I do not think those are the right cuts to make. I agree entirely with my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who suggested that there are much better ways of balancing the Budget. The fiscal rules are self-imposed, anyway.
To look at some of the specific issues with the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion in relation to the essentials guarantee and amendment 39. Making people poorer will not magically improve their health. I fully agree with new clause 11 on co-production, and I urge the Minister to take action on that.
In Scotland we have created the adult disability payment. If the Minister looks on the Social Security Scotland website, he will see that it says
“social security is a human right...any of us, at any time…may need this support.”
We centred the decision making on dignity, fairness and respect. I am not saying for a second that the adult disability payment is perfect—there are issues with every system—but I urge the Minister to look at how it was co-produced and the lessons we learned from that when he is planning the co-production of the review of PIP assessments.
I am massively concerned that we are not clear about the basis on which the Timms review is being done. What is the point of the review? I understand that it is to review the PIP assessment process—I have got that bit—but what is the Government’s aim? Is it to cut billions of pounds from the PIP bill? Is it to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions do not have to fill in the same form over and over again, explaining what it is that they cannot do? Is it to reduce the number of mandatory reconsiderations? Is it to make the system better, centring it on dignity and respect? Some clarity from the Government on that would be incredibly helpful.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with the terms of reference for the Timms review, which clearly set out that its purpose is to ensure that PIP assessment is
“fair and fit for the future…and helps support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence.”
I hope that she will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is very well placed to lead the review in co-production with disabled people.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. It would be great if the Minister could clarify from the Dispatch Box that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money. If the hon. Member can give that commitment on behalf of the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked the Minister to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference say, “We do not want money to be saved,” that is grand, but I could not find that in the terms of reference.
I would like to hear from the Minister on whether he has been asked to save money through the review. Disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the Government’s actions and their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. I think we should hear from the Minister whether he will be trying to save money or putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that co-production happens with that.
I have some questions about the severe conditions criteria. I am concerned because the Bill’s wording is different from what the DWP has been putting out in press releases. Press releases such as the one quoted today in The Guardian have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible under the severe conditions criteria. However, the Bill says that a claimant would need to have a condition “constantly”.
The Minister needs to give an explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box. The UK Government have decided not to give the Bill a proper Bill Committee, where we would have asked these questions, hashed this out and got that level of clarification, and people are really scared. As the Minister will know, a significant number of amendments have been tabled on these conditions, from parties across the House. Concerns have been raised, because schedule 1 to the Bill states:
“A descriptor constantly applies to a claimant if that descriptor applies to the claimant at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.”
So if one of the descriptors is about being able to get around or being able to wash yourself, that paragraph says that the descriptor must apply “constantly”. If that is not the case, we need a clear explanation about that from the Minister. I cannot find the need for a condition to apply “constantly” in previous legislation. It seems to me that this is a new addition.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Last week we heard the Minister say, from the Dispatch Box, that descriptors, activities and associated points will all be subject to the Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people. Was the hon. Member listening to that statement, and does she accept that as a fact given at the Dispatch Box?
Kirsty Blackman
No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?
Sir Stephen Timms
The form of words in the Bill, including the word “constant”, exactly replicates the way the severe conditions criteria are applied at the moment. The “constant” refers to the applicability of the descriptor. If somebody has a fluctuating condition and perhaps on one day they are comfortably able to walk 50 metres, the question to put to that person by the assessor is, “Can you do so reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time?” If the answer to that question is no, the descriptor still applies to them. The question is whether the descriptor applies constantly. If it does, the severe conditions criteria are met.
Kirsty Blackman
That clear information from the Dispatch Box is what I was asking for. Hearing that will give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister is aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at when it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the descriptors. If people are not asked if they can or cannot do something reliably on other days, I will expect disabled people’s charities to use the Minister’s comment from the Dispatch Box when they bring mandatory considerations or challenges to say, “The Minister was utterly clear that I have answered the question correctly, in line with the legislation.” I encourage them to do so.
Given the way the legislation is written, I will still not support the severe conditions criteria and the cut. I agree with colleagues who have said that 750,000 people are expecting to lose money as a result of this. As one of my Labour colleagues, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), has said, this is still £2 billion of cuts on disabled people that the Labour party has chosen to make, or that is what it says in the impact assessment. It has chosen to make that cut to 750,000 people, asking itself, “Where can we make £2 billion of cuts? I know, let’s do it to disabled people.” We could have an additional £2 billion in taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on that money for the everyday items that they desperately require.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I completely agree with that contention. This is how we judge a society: by how it takes care of the most vulnerable. As the hon. Lady says, and not to discredit anybody, but it appears on the face of it that people have simply decided to say, “This is where we will go”, when in actual fact there are other avenues that can be explored, and people want us to do that before we get into any of this.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member has been a real champion for her constituents in this and she is absolutely correct: this is not the first place that I would expect any MP to look to save money, and especially not the first place where I would expect a supposedly progressive Government to look to save money. I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up in this situation and unlike what was said before, I do not think there are victorious faces on the Back Benches. I think people on the Government Benches are absolutely heartsick, no matter what side of this debate they are on. They wish that those on the Government Front Bench had not put this forward and that they were not in the position of having to pick a side, because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour Government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first matter of business.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The winding-up speeches will have to start at 5.30 pm. There are 37 Members standing on both sides of the House. I am not allowed to impose a time limit, but were I to do so, it would be about four minutes. It is for Members to decide whether to allow their colleagues to speak or to take up more of the time, in which case it is quite clear that not everybody will be called to speak. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will do my best, Sir Roger. I want to address new clause 8, tabled in my name. It is a procedural clause and I do not think it is particularly contentious.
Before I address the new clause, I want to say that I am still getting emails and still being met on the bus and at community events by people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through. I want to put on record for my constituents that, as always, I will not vote for any legislation that cuts benefits to some of the poorest people I represent. I just cannot do that and I want that underlined.
Ironically, just to give some context, some Members may have listened today to an interview on the “Today” programme with George Osborne, who is now the chair of the British Museum, in which he was talking about the Bayeux tapestry coming to this country. I remember another tapestry, which was brought to this House when he introduced cuts to benefits for disabled people. It showed the names of the people who had committed suicide. Do hon. Members remember that? It was one of the most distressing things I have seen in my political life and I wept that day. I do not want that to happen again. Let us be honest, as sure as night follows day, if cuts go through on the scale proposed, people will lose their lives. People will suffer immense harm. Let us all understand that.
Members talk pompously about “The House at its best”, but last week’s debate was a good day for the House. People on all sides expressed their views, the Government responded, although not as far as I wanted them to respond, and the House held the Government to account. It is not often that we see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened was that we were dealing with primary legislation that hon. Members could debate and amend. I have put this new clause forward because, if the Government do anything, they should do it through primary legislation and not delegated legislation, which goes on in Committee, where there is no chance to amend it and it is often rushed through on a vote with no debate. This matter is so important that that is not the way we should operate as a House.
Last week, hon. Members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this Chamber. That is why my new clause says that the Government must bring forward primary legislation in draft form so that we can all see it—no bouncers any more—and it is not done as delegated legislation so that Members do not have the chance to amend it or properly discuss it. That is all I ask for, and to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it, because it is the normal democratic process in this Chamber. I want to be able to go back to my constituents when the review comes forward, and say, “I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I won on some and lost on others—that’s democracy.”
I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). It is truly an excellent setting out of how co-production could work. The only element on which I disagree with her is when the process moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement, which we could reject so that they could not move on. The problem with that is exactly the same as with delegated legislation: we cannot amend a statement. I have been here so long that I know what Governments do. They bring forward a statement including some good stuff that we cannot vote against, but there is also some bad stuff that we disagree with. If we cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result, we get bad legislation. None the less, the part of new clause 11 that sets out who should be consulted, be involved and elect the chair is critical.
I do not want to sound patronising, but the speech made by the hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week brought tears to my eyes, and it is not often a speech in this House does that. The justified anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, and I think it moved the whole House. I do not want a Member standing up in five years’ time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not aggressively but constructively, in a way that we can debate and amend, and hopefully we might even be able to build consensus. That is what my new clause is all about, and that is all I want to say.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues.
New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.
Debbie Abrahams
I hope the hon. Member does not mind my intervening on him, but I want to pick up on the point he was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Is he aware that during the pandemic, for example, people who have leave to remain were unable to avail themselves of any social security support as they do not have recourse to public funds, and that they were left absolutely destitute? I hope he will withdraw his remark, because it is just not true.
Mr Bedford
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am not going to withdraw the comment I made, because there are people in that situation—
Mr Bedford
The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent Nick, who works hard for the money he earns and pays into system, walks through his town centre, he asks himself, “What is the point? Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often don’t?” These amendments matter. They are not unfair; they are principled. They would ensure that the welfare system remained strong for those who truly need it, and fair for those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act, and unfortunately, if the Government do not support our amendments today, they will be letting the public down.
Dr Tidball
I rise to speak to new clause 11 and Government amendment 4. This Bill has been transformed since Second Reading. I welcome the Government’s significant changes and hard work. I said that I could not support the measures that remained on the face of the Bill last week that would have pushed 150,000 people into poverty. Nor could I accept proposals for a points system which, under previously proposed descriptors, would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. Towards the end of the Second Reading debate, the Government promised to remove clause 5 on personal independence payments, including the eligibility criteria. I wholeheartedly support Government amendment 4, which achieves that.
I am pleased to hear that the new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found that the Bill will now lift 50,000 people out of relative poverty by 2030. This matters, to fulfil the Government’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and to meet our commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In 2016, under the Conservative Government, when the UN produced its inquiry report on the UK’s treatment of disabled people, it said that the Government at that time had to ensure that any measures of welfare reform should uphold the human rights model of disability and did not disproportionately or adversely affect the rights of disabled people to live independently or to access employment.
Vicky Foxcroft
I welcome the amendment, but does my hon. Friend agree that co-production needs to go beyond oversight if we want to build trust and engagement with disabled people and their organisations, and that we need to commit to the principles of co-production as outlined in my speech on Second Reading last week?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend, and I will be getting to those points shortly.
Further, the UN said that the voices of disabled people must be at the front and centre of this work and that the UK must actively consult and engage with disabled people and their organisations and give due consideration to their views in any legislation related to these rights. Therefore, Government amendment 4 is a significant step forward in removing those measures that were not consulted on. It also prevents the risks I highlighted in my speech last week on the previously proposed eligibility criteria, particularly on future recipients.
I am also pleased that the Minister confirmed last week that the legislation on changes to PIP eligibility and descriptors will not happen until the completion of the Timms review. This leads me to new clause 11. I am grateful for this new clause being selected. It is important to have a debate on it as a probing new clause, and above all, I will be seeking reassurances from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will get the detail of co-production right. I am grateful that the measures in this new clause were co-produced and supported by Disability Rights UK and the Spinal Injuries Association, as well as through discussions with a broader group of disabled people’s organisations and charities.
My new clause 11 sets out key measures to deliver on our excellent manifesto commitment to champion the rights of disabled people and enshrine the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Further, the measures in the new clause create a strong link between the Timms review and fulfilling our Equality Act public sector equality duty, along with the UK’s commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, including the principle in article 4.3 of the need to
“consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”.
Thus, in this context, meaningful co-production with the disability inclusion taskforce as part of the Timms review is essential.
Anna Dixon
I commend my hon. Friend for her excellent speeches, both today and on Second Reading, and for all the work I know she has done behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. I fully support her new clause 11, which would guarantee meaningful engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP. As she knows, PIP is also a gateway benefit to carer’s allowance, so does she agree that it is essential to include carers, as well as disabled people, in the disability co-production taskforce?
Dr Tidball
I do agree. The Minister will head up this review, but the voices of disabled people must be front and centre. The measures in this new clause emphasise the need for disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to make up the majority of the taskforce and to have a significant role in the leadership of the review, and I believe carers could be part of that.
The output of this review must be meaningful and not performative. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recommendations co-produced in the taskforce come back to this House for full scrutiny, debate and parliamentary approval before the legislation to implement the review’s outcomes is brought forward. That will ensure democratic accountability on those outcomes, including on how changes to PIP eligibility will impact disabled people. While the new clause suggests that this should happen after 12 months, and ahead of any proposals on PIP coming out next autumn, I am aware that the Minister is keen to ensure this co-production process is not rushed—that is a good approach.
I am grateful for the fact that in his closing statement on Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged my call for a target on closing the disability employment gap. That is the kind of approach I know the Government will develop as they bring forward their plans for employment support. The significant changes made to the Bill since last week will shift the emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential, and to closing the disability employment gap. They will anchor Labour values of fairness in this part of the legislation.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), amendment 38 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), amendment 39 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and new clause 8 tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Errol Graham was a 57-year-old grandad and former amateur footballer. When bailiffs came to evict him, they found his emaciated body in a freezing flat—no gas, no electricity and no food. Only two tins of fish four years out of date remained. He weighed just four and a half stone. A coroner ruled that he had suffered death by starvation. Errol suffered from severe social anxiety. The Department for Work and Pensions knew that, and still cut off his only source of income. As his daughter-in-law said,
“He would still be alive. He’d be ill, but he’d still be alive.”
His death was not a tragic exception; it was a political consequence.
In 2017, Jodey Whiting took her own life after missing a fit-for-work test while she was hospitalised. Stephen Smith was denied benefits despite being gravely ill. He died in 2019. These are not just names; they are the human cost of decisions made in this place—decisions that, according to Sir Michael Marmot’s research, contributed to over 1 million premature deaths in England between 2011 and the pandemic, driven by poverty and austerity. Today the Government press ahead with more of the same.
Clause 2 of the Bill will slash the universal credit health element—the limited capability for work and work-related activity component—from £97 to just £50 a week. By 2030, that is an annual cut of £3,000 for over 750,000 disabled people. These are not people waiting for an assessment; they are people who the DWP has already found too ill to work—people who cannot feed themselves, who live with degenerative illnesses and who experience daily pain, confusion and incontinence—and we are supposed to believe that this is about helping them into employment. Even the Government’s own figures show that fewer than one in 10 new claimants will be protected by the so-called severe conditions criteria, and charities such as Scope, Z2K, the MS Society and Inclusion London have made that clear. The clause will exclude “huge swathes” of severely disabled people, especially those with fluctuating or progressive conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s. Why? Because to qualify, their condition—according to the Bill—must affect them not severely or overwhelmingly, but constantly. As Scope put it,
“It feels like it’s been designed to cut support—not to support people.”
Let us not forget the requirement for an NHS diagnosis in the middle of an NHS backlog crisis. That excludes people with neurodivergent conditions and others who rely on private or social care support. This is a deliberate narrowing of the safety net. The result? A two-tier system that punishes people for trying to work, having variable symptoms or falling through the cracks of bureaucracy.
Robin Swann
The severe conditions criteria and the need for an NHS diagnosis exclude young people as well, because their diagnosis and condition may not automatically transfer from their medical records as a child to their adult records. They would need another NHS diagnosis to move from the children’s DLA to PIP.
Zarah Sultana
Exactly. Those are among the concerns about the requirement for an NHS diagnosis.
Meanwhile, what is the economic justification? Well, there is not one. As a share of GDP, working-age benefits have not risen since 2015. Other countries, such as France, New Zealand and Australia, invest more in their disabled citizens. We have alternatives—for example, we could have a 2% tax on extreme wealth. Just 50 families in this country own more wealth than half the UK population. According to YouGov, three quarters of the public support a 2% tax on those with wealth of more than £10 million, yet this Government will not tax the super-rich. Instead, they choose to take from those with arthritis, cancer and chronic pain. They just cannot decide how much suffering to inflict. While they squeeze the most vulnerable, they have found billions for war, and billions to raise defence spending and back endless foreign interventions—money for war, but not the poor.
The truth is this: Westminster is broken, but the real crisis is deeper. This Government are not only out of touch but morally bankrupt. They work for billionaires and big business, while turning their back on disabled people. They hold their summer receptions at Mastercard headquarters, while disabled people are pushed to food banks. They impoverish the sick and elderly to satisfy spreadsheets, and then dare to speak of “tough choices.” But the public sees through this: 81% of voters believe that disabled people should receive support for basic living costs. That is not a niche opinion; that is mainstream Britain. Disabled organisations, from Disabled People Against Cuts to Disability Rights UK, are united in their opposition to clause 2, because if this cut is passed, the consequences will be felt everywhere, especially in our constituency surgeries. The emails, the letters, the desperation, the suffering—all of it is avoidable.
I voted to protect winter fuel payments, and I would do it again. I voted to scrap the two-child benefit cap, and I would do it again. I will vote against these cuts tonight, because this is not just about benefits; it is about the country we want to be. Do we want to be a country that protects the vulnerable, or punishes them? I know which side I stand on, and I know that I speak for millions across this country when I say that we are not going to take this any more. The two-party stitch-up is finished. There is an alternative, and we will be offering it.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe that the Bill will help address some of the difficult challenges that our country faces. I know many in this House are motivated by a genuine desire to improve lives and ensure that our welfare system is fair, sustainable and fit for purpose, but I have to say, with the deepest respect and regret, that on this occasion, I think we have got this wrong. Yes, the Labour Government have inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and, yes, we need reform, but we must be clear that reform cannot mean pushing disabled people further into poverty. It cannot mean referring to cuts as modernisation. Poverty has a price tag, and the cost-shunting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration.
I support amendment 37 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which highlights the lack of value for money in the contracts for assessment. There are so many successful reassessments and appeals; it is clear that we are not getting value for money from these contracts, and that this is an expensive and ineffective model that Ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward, and that is reflected in many of the amendments that I am supporting.
New clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would ensure that any changes to PIP must be brought forward in primary legislation. I strongly agree with that. Given the lack of time we have had to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down until the recommendations are brought back to us, so that we can have good-quality debate, and put better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility for those who are already struggling or at risk of poverty.
New clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) calls for any review of PIP to be grounded in the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In a sense, I am disappointed that such a clause might be needed, but it points to the fact that we need more transparency, independent oversight and, crucially, co-production with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us, and I hope the Government are listening on that new clause.
Amendment 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), acknowledges the fluctuating nature of some medical conditions that can be unpredictable and debilitating. The amendment would ensure that people with those conditions are not left vulnerable, and that the process is responsive and serves its purpose of being a safety blanket to those who need it most. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise concerns. People with conditions including multiple sclerosis, Huntingdon’s, cancer and schizophrenia are concerned about how the changes will impact on them. Their voices must be heard in this place. The amendments do not block reform; I think they strengthen it. They will ensure that the Bill is evidence-led and rooted in fairness.
New clause 12 seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal credit. Although it is not a shock that the Opposition will use any debate as an excuse to have a game of migrant-bashing, I am disappointed that those ideas have made their way into this proposal. What they will not tell the public is that most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and universal credit because they have no recourse to public funds. That restriction acts as a blanket ban on access to the social security system for 3.6 million migrants. Is it really acceptable to deny access to PIP or other social security to those who have spent years living and working in the UK—paying taxes and astronomical visa fees, and finally securing indefinite leave to remain—based on their nationality rather than on their disability? The new clause threatens the fundamental principle of our immigration system—that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to many of the same rights as British citizens.
There are better choices we can make, and better ways to find the money that we are told we need to find. We can scrap the outdated marriage tax allowance, a gimmick of the Cameron Government that still costs us £590 million a year. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes, such as the carried interest loophole used by private equity bosses, which would raise half a billion pounds. We can apply national insurance to investment income, raising over £10 billion. A modest 2% adjustment to the £207 billion handed out in non-structural annual tax reliefs would raise £4 billion alone each and every year.
Let us talk about those reliefs. There are roughly 1,180 tax reliefs in the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has no idea what benefit 815 of them bring to the public. This is about choices—we hear all the time about “tough choices”—so why are we not choosing not to properly examine that £200 billion of public spending while we tighten support for disabled people, who are just trying to live? We can and should reform the system.
Imran Hussain
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case. Does she agree that, for many of us, our principled objection to the Bill remains? It will still balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable; it will still bring poverty to our streets. Will she join me in my plea for the Bill to be withdrawn, which is the best option for the Government?
Olivia Blake
I agree. That is my plea to the Treasury Benchers: There is still time to withdraw the Bill and come back with something better.
These issues should be tackled head-on. It is unjust that, because of the way we have built society, each and every disabled person faces £1,000 in extra costs on average per month. None of that is optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was not designed with disabled people in mind. There is a whole host of reasons for that spending; they are the non-negotiable realities of having a disability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help, so listen to us.
Graham Stuart
A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, be it looking after the poor or the disabled, or any other priority. Yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled, and their unemployment Bill, jobs tax and other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can Labour Members not understand that if they do not prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, they will never be able to serve the most vulnerable, who depend on that growth the most?
Olivia Blake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting at that point, because I have two suggestions that I think would be good for growth. The first is to ask the British Investment Bank to support disabled people in setting up their own business, as it does women and those setting up a minority-led business. I know many ADHDers who would make great entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, sometimes they end up going down the path of criminality. We should consider how we can ensure that their innovation is enhanced and used properly.
The second suggestion is that we make our economy much more inclusive. There could be a national insurance contribution discount for taking on someone with a disability, who may be in receipt of PIP and may have been out of work for more than six months. I am sure that, through a more inclusive society, we can encourage growth, not discourage it.
I have taken up far too much time, so I will end with this. Disabled people know what is best for us. We should be investing in people’s independence, not leaving them on the sidelines or pushing them into poverty. That is a matter of justice, but in the end, it saves money as well. More than that, it gives people the dignity and freedom to live well. That, surely, should be our purpose.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I stand to support new clauses 8 and 11, and amendments 12, 38 and 39, among others, which I will mention as I go through my speech. I promise to keep to the unofficial four-minute time limit.
A week after the cruel Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and its arbitrary eligibility cut-offs was first discussed, we are today being asked to amend and pass this deeply flawed Bill in a couple of hours. Of course, it is now a completely different Bill from what was first introduced—even the title will be changed. I am not alone in welcoming the removal of clause 5, which means that no one will lose vital personal independence payments so that the Government can save some money. However, unlike other hon. Members, I do not believe that the UK Government’s concessions make the Bill any more worthy to become legislation.
The Government have conceded that placing an arbitrary cut-off date on PIP eligibility is unsupportable, so why on earth do they continue to do exactly that for claimants of the health element of universal credit? I commend the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for amendment (a) to amendment 2, which would keep the health element of universal credit at £423.27 for all new claimants, rather than lowering the rate for people who are unlucky enough to require that support after 2026, which will cause real hardship. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that, without further changes, over 700,000 disabled people will still face a cut to their income of up to £3,000 a year by 2030.
We do not know what data has informed that approach or how it will impact on the great people of Wales. An assessment of the specific impacts on Wales has been necessary since the UK Government first announced their welfare cuts months ago. Now that their plans have changed considerably, that impact assessment is all the more crucial. People in Wales need transparency and certainty about how the changes will affect their lives.
In what functioning democracy does a Government Bill get fundamentally altered in the middle of the first debate on that very Bill, and then elected representatives are given only a few hours to scrutinise it before it is passed? We need time to scrutinise the Bill fully and effectively. We need time to co-produce it with the constituents whose lives it will affect. This is a chaotic and shameful state of affairs, especially in the light of the substantial impact that the Bill will have on thousands of disabled people on the lowest incomes.
Ann Davies
I am just coming to the end of my remarks, if the hon. Member does not mind. I am keeping to my four-minute time limit.
The Bill should be scrapped. It is neither fair nor compassionate welfare reform. It is not fit for our constituents.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.
I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria,
“at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.”
Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”.
I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he has done on this, and for helpfully highlighting that concern. It might help if I read briefly to him what the current training material for people applying the severe conditions criteria says about what level of function will always meet limited capability for work and work related activity:
“Although this criterion refers to a level of function that would always meet LCWRA, this does not in any way exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.
The key issue is that the person’s condition is not subject to such variability that their function would ever be significantly improved from the LCWRA descriptor identified”.
I hope that that, together with my earlier intervention, will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Graeme Downie
I very much thank the Minister for his intervention, which I think will provide extensive reassurance to those with Parkinson’s and other conditions. I will keep a watching brief on this measure as it progresses, and I am aware that Parkinson’s UK has today received its own legal advice, which indicates that the application of the measure might not be quite as clear as the Minister intends.
My other concern is about the perhaps undue burden that the measure places on the guidance, as well as the perhaps unfair position in which it puts an assessor, which could lead to an inconsistent application of the guidance.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know, as do many Members, that my father-in-law died from Parkinson’s two and a half weeks ago, so this is a personal issue for both me and my family, and for many constituents who have written to me in recent weeks regarding their concerns about the lack of clarity. I add my support to my hon. Friend’s calls for clarity. Although I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, we must ensure that we get this right, and get it right soon.
Graeme Downie
I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with my hon. Friend and his family. I know what a challenging time it has been, and the fact that he has been able to carry on his duties extensively, representing his constituents, is to his credit and something that his family will be incredibly proud of.
As I said, the Minister has been generous with his time, and I do not believe for a moment that his intention is to restrict access to the severe conditions criteria for those with Parkinson’s. Those words from the Dispatch Box are incredibly helpful, but I ask him to ensure that he keeps a close eye on the situation.
Robin Swann
As the hon. Member knows, I signed his amendment, but may I caution him before he accepts the Minister’s very kind guidance? Will he clarify that it is guidance? This is training documentation and it is subject to change. It is not contained anywhere in the Bill or the amendments, so what the Minister read to the Committee was simply training guidance.
Graeme Downie
Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern.
My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. As a signatory to his amendment, I wonder whether his discussions with the Minister have included someone with a condition such as relapsing-remitting MS who can spend long periods appearing to be perfectly healthy, but then have other periods when a crisis occurs and they are debilitated by their condition. Will the provisions that the Minister describes be sympathetic to those sorts of situations?
Graeme Downie
As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need.
Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 36. Over the past weeks, I have met numerous disability organisations, from Parkinson’s UK to Action for ME, and heard directly from those living with complex fluctuating conditions. I have also seen the impact at first hand as an employer of people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen and lived is simple: the current proposals risk unacceptable consequences for those who are already among the most vulnerable. The Government’s redefinition of “severe conditions” hinges on the word “constantly”—a single word that is of dubious clinical value. I appreciate the clarification given to other Members, but it is very late in the day to be getting such important information.
Conditions such as ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, MS, epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable and they fluctuate, yet the Bill would exclude many individuals who have them from vital support, simply because their symptoms do not comply with a Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that our assessment system respects the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. This affirms the principle of non-retrogression so that we do not roll back hard-won rights. It insists that we take invisible and episodic conditions seriously, and it protects people from falling through the cracks.
The Bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament, and at this point the most obvious course of action would be simply to pull it altogether and start again. I realise the political difficulties that that may involve, but vulnerable people’s lives are at stake. When the Government come to look again at some of the deleted clauses via the Timms review, it is essential to approach the issue from a “needs first” angle, not a “how much can I save?” angle, because so many Government cuts in the past have ended up costing more than they have saved.
I accept that the Government do not have infinite funds, but the PIP proposal represented an arbitrary change in eligibility—the four-point rule—with the crude objective of making a predetermined saving. It has all been the wrong way around: we should wait to understand needs first, and only then consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them.
Anna Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the concessions that the Government have brought forward and the amendments that are before us today ensure that we are getting it the right way around? It is explicit in the terms of reference that the changes are about a fair and fit-for-the-future assessment, rather than to generate further savings, so does he agree that the Bill allows us to get the Timms review done and to bring forward proposals after that?
John Milne
I cannot agree with the hon. Member, and I will partly explain why in a moment.
We need a more honest assessment of the overall financial situation that is being used to justify these drastic cuts, because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions. The dramatic rise in PIP claimants is at least partly driven by other Government policy; perhaps one quarter of the rise is simply due to raising the pension age. Large numbers of people who are older, and therefore more likely to be disabled, have been pushed out of pension support into benefit support. The state pension is paid out of current taxation, not past contributions, so the impact is immediate.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS and waiting lists. Does he share my concerns about the severe conditions criteria and the requirements for the diagnosis to be made by an NHS professional, in the course of NHS duty, when people may not have access to that? There is also a requirement for the condition to be considered “lifelong” by NHS professionals or health professionals, who may be unwilling to say that schizophrenia or bipolar disease, for example, are “lifelong” because they do not want to tie people down to that diagnosis.
John Milne
Yes, I agree that that is an additional concern.
The implication has been made, both by this Government and the previous one, that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people simply exaggerating their conditions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. For all these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the Bill now and to make a fresh start. Denying adequate support today will only shift the burden tomorrow on to social care, the emergency services and our already overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once, but three times, that our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment 36 is a chance to show that we are listening.
Neil Coyle
I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today, in particular those that call for delays to legislation. We are one year into a five-year term—20% of this Parliament is gone—and the public need to see progress, not further delay.
I am mindful that Ministers have already done a huge amount of heavy lifting to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. We should all recall that in July 2024, the Department for Work and Pensions was under formal investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for unlawful treatment of disabled people. This Government have made considerable progress since then in trying to rebuild trust, including through measures in this Bill and linked to it, such as abolishing the work capability assessment. I have been here for 10 years—some might say it feels like longer—but before entering this place, I campaigned, as the chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, to abolish the work capability assessment. I know that disabled people and their organisations are grateful and thankful for the inclusion of that measure in the wider package that the Government are bringing forward.
Although it seems to have been lost in some of the debates we have had on the subject, I am also mindful that in my own constituency, the number of claimants for PIP will rise in this Parliament, spending on that will continue to rise in this Parliament, and the 12,700 universal credit claimants in my constituency will get an additional payment under this Government’s plans, which will be the first ever above-inflation rise in universal credit. There is much to gain and much that is supported by disabled people and their organisations in the package that the Government have brought forward.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to support more disabled people into work. We need to challenge ourselves a little more in this place about some of the language of vulnerability. Being seen automatically as vulnerable because of a health condition or impairment is not in line with the social model of disability. Many disabled people find that patronising and offensive, and we need to update our system, just as we updated our system thanks to previous Labour Governments. We had the first ever blind Secretary of State in David Blunkett—now Lord Blunkett—at a time when the benefits system said that blind people were not required to participate in work-related activity. The benefits system is not a static beast: it is an evolving creature that needs to be updated to reflect changes in assistive technology, medication and adaptation and advances in technology.
We must not end up with a system in which people are written off and parked in a system because it is too difficult to get them into work. That is not a Labour solution. We are the party of full employment, which must and should include disabled people if we are committed to disability equality and if we are the party of progress. I will chip in that this party takes no lectures on what is progressive from nationalists, whether it is Scottish nationalists or the populists in Reform. We see the costs to disabled people of parking under the former benefits system and legacy benefits: the longer that somebody is out of work, the more ill health that they experience, including mental health and depression, and the more costs that they incur for the NHS. There are state benefits and individual benefits for getting the right support.
I speak from rather too much personal family experience. My mum has schizophrenia and my dad had a stroke in his 40s. He was told by the jobcentre, “This is what you will get. Now, basically, sod off—we do not want to see you, and we do not expect to provide you with anything.” He found his own way back into work through going to university as a mature student—well, not that mature—at Newcastle University, and he graduated in the same year as me.
We should look at the wider picture of full employment. I particularly welcome the Government’s broader aim of reducing the disability employment gap, which was deeply neglected for 14 years, and transforming jobcentres from benefit administration centres. They had been failing not because of a lack of will or frontline staff, some of whom are absolutely excellent, but simply because the job they were given to do had changed from being about supporting people into work to simply administering a failing system that, as we discussed earlier, had the highest fraud levels ever seen in the UK social security system.
I think most of us believe that disability equality is measured not in the amount of benefits that individuals receive, but in the shared opportunities and access to life chances open to all in our country. I am deeply mindful of that, because while we had a lost generation under the 14 years of the Conservative Government and the Lib Dem coalition Government, we had a previous Government who were deeply committed to those issues. That Government published a report, 20 years ago today, called “Improving the life chances of disabled people” with an implementation and delivery date that was meant to provide those opportunities and equal access by 2025. Sadly, those coalition and Conservative years set back the clock.
The report is still available to all those who want to see it, and it talks about pathways to work and dedicated employment programmes being necessary, such as the new deal for disabled people. Those programmes were largely demolished by the coalition. It talks about the importance of the role of the NHS, GPs, occupational health and rehab. Again, a Labour Government are now fixing the wider NHS problems to make those aims and objectives deliverable today. The then Prime Minister’s strategy in the report committed to changing the system so that it tested functionality and ability to contribute, rather than writing people off. Again, this Government have had to come back to that after a lost decade.
We had a report 20 years ago that talked about the necessity of a better equipment system and the need to improve access to work—something that Ministers are committed to today and are beginning to transform with faster assessment processes and by delivering the kit needed. The report also talks about the importance of engaging with employers and the positive role that Jobcentre Plus could play in engaging employers early in the process. Sadly, we have seen a long delay in delivering those improved life chances, but this is a Labour party back in government and trying to deliver disability equality and improve the life chances of disabled people. The measures in this Bill are integral to that aim.
As I say, I am concerned about some of the amendments before us. I also have some concerns that the Bill needs to go further in tackling barriers to work for disabled people, such as the benefits structure, including for those in supported accommodation. It is great that we have the right to try, but more is necessary. We also need to go a bit further with employers, including around reasonable adjustments and ensuring that employers do not accept resignations based on ill health immediately, but look at the packages of support that might be necessary, as well as working with them to tackle discrimination. The Federation of Small Businesses in particular, which has done work on this issue previously, would be a really useful partner to have going forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, may I remind all Members that this is the Committee stage? Can we have some focus on the amendments we are debating this afternoon, not wide-ranging Third Reading speeches? At this rate, there will be little time for Third Reading.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise today to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country.
As the Resolution Foundation puts it, this Bill represents an
“income shock for millions of low-income households.”
That should give every Member in this Chamber pause. What is particularly troubling is that the areas hardest hit are the very communities that this Government claim to support—places in the north of England, in Wales and in my region of Yorkshire. These proud working-class areas are being failed by a Government tightening the purse strings on the most vulnerable.
In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment. I have had more than 150 constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. Those are not just numbers; they are real people with real needs. The universal credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country. One of my constituents, Andrew Waring, ran a business before 2020. Then covid left him with long-term organ damage. He could barely walk 10 metres, and his PIP payments became a lifeline. Cutting such support is not about trimming fat; it cuts into people’s dignity and survival. More than 20 civil society organisations have urged MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the Government’s amendments and the change introduced last week to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms review has concluded, people are still left concerned and in severe distress.
As it stands, clause 2 will leave 750,000 people, according to the Government’s impact assessment published last night, up to £3,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit and disability benefits have used a food bank in the past month, and this Bill will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to maintain the current universal credit health element. That cut will especially hurt people with mental health conditions who are already struggling to access support.
Many Members across the House have spoken in support of the other amendments that I also support, and I will not repeat their eloquent and informed speeches and the points they made. To conclude, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year in Parliament is to see a critical Bill, which will impact millions and millions of people in our country, rushed through the legislative process in a way that has not allowed the relevant time to understand, amend and improve it so that it is fit for purpose. I am sorry to say so, but this process has been a legislative mess.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I just want to make a gentle point to the hon. Member. He points out that the process feels rushed, but sitting here, I observe that there is not a lot of demand to speak from Members from any of the other parties on the Opposition Benches: just two Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs and no Reform MPs. Does he share my disappointment?
Iqbal Mohamed
I am unable to comment on the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as “absent”. I am here to represent my independent alliance colleagues, all of whom strongly oppose the Bill as it is presented here today. It will adversely impact millions of people in our country—the people at the bottom of the food chain; the people who are struggling to feed their children, heat their homes, get to work, and keep appointments that are critical for receiving treatment that enables them to manage their conditions.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Member talks of the difficulty faced by people with disabilities. Many millions of those people are supported by family members who are unpaid carers. Does he agree that although the Government have said that they will work with disability groups and people who have disabilities, they should also co-produce whatever comes forward in conjunction with carers’ organisations?
Iqbal Mohamed
I do agree, and I repeat a point that was made earlier by one of my colleagues: the Timms review must include not just disabled people but disabled people of all ages, and also carers. As I said in my speech last week, this change could potentially cut £500 million from carer’s allowance for people who are caring for disabled relatives, the largest cut since the allowance was introduced in 1967. We urge the Government to maintain that holistic view of the change and the impact that it will have.
The process of the Bill—despite the objections from Labour Members—has been a legislative mess. What happened last week has been followed by today’s amendments, which will basically gut the Bill and focus the changes on universal credit. We have seen last-minute changes, a rushed timescale and a lack of proper scrutiny. Disability is not a choice. Needing help is not a failure. This Bill is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal. I urge every Member of the House to reject it.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I was keen to speak in the debate, to share with hon. Members my own lived experiences of our current welfare system and to explain why I support a number of the amendments.
My dad worked hard from the day he left school, at age 15, right the way through to the age of 55. He was an engineer. He paid his taxes and contributed to society. He never sought help from anyone throughout his life, and he was proud of the work ethic that he stood for. But on 13 August 2013, out of nowhere, he had a life-altering stroke. Overnight he completely lost the use of his left leg and left arm, his hand was almost always in a tight fist, and speech and memory became difficult. Although he had worked for the same engineering company for more than 20 years, his employment contract offered little financial support, and within just a few weeks he was struggling to make ends meet on statutory sick pay. As a family, we had never heard of personal independence payments or of universal credit. My dad did not want to apply, but financial realities meant that we had no choice.
We found a welfare system that was difficult to access. It was confusing, slow—incredibly slow—and at all times we found it frustrating and, frankly, dehumanising. We spent months and months going through the PIP application process, and all the while no financial support was forthcoming and things were tough—very tough. My parents were supported by the local food bank. They borrowed money and got into debt.
Having lived a difficult 10 years following his stroke, fighting against a system that he had paid into for so long, my dad died. In January 2023, having struggled to get a GP appointment, he developed pneumonia. He was placed in a medically induced coma, during which time he had a further stroke from which he never recovered. My dad, like so many others, was let down by the welfare system that was supposed to care for him, and let down by the NHS at the end of his life.
Given my background, the House can perhaps understand why I have found confronting some of the initial proposals in this Bill so difficult. I have seen at first hand how debates in Parliament and rhetoric from hon. Members impact on my own family and on my constituents, particularly with regard to their mental health. It is important that we recognise that disabled people so often feel that they are a burden. They feel that others think that their disability has been somehow manufactured, and that they are benefit cheats. Disabled people are not a burden; it is our privilege to support them.
It has been said of late that Labour is the party of work. Indeed it is, but through that labour we have a responsibility and duty to help others, and it is important that these values are reflected in any proposals. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), which seek to ensure that those values are enshrined, because I agree that we absolutely should be doing more to support disabled people into work. Obvious barriers exist, particularly in more rural areas, such as my constituency, where transport options are limited and suitable work opportunities are more difficult to find. Of course we should support disabled people into work, but not by changing the rules and making eligibility for benefits more difficult.
Our public services are broken, and many of my hon. Friends have articulated well how bad things are. Following 14 years of Conservative failure, it should be no surprise that welfare claims are rising. It is the statistical inevitability of the state of our country.
In all the time I spent advocating for my dad at DWP appointments, medical assessments and work capability assessments, I would sit there and think, “What about the people who do not have someone fighting on their behalf? What hope do they have?” Navigating the system was bad enough for our family. What must it be like for others?
In our roles as MPs, we all have a responsibility to advocate for people who do not have a voice. If we want to reduce the welfare bill—I am sure we all want to do so—we must do so by fixing our broken systems. Millions of people are on NHS waiting lists, and many who want to work are not receiving the treatment that would enable them to do so. This Government are making tremendous progress on improving our NHS and healthcare systems, and we need to give that time to bring about the change that we seek. The welfare system is slow, expensive and inefficient, and it is riddled with private profit taking advantage. We must reform that, tackle that and reduce those costs.
Disabled people in this country have suffered disproportionately for years. Austerity and the last Conservative Government ruined lives, and people longed for a changed narrative under Labour. They voted for that change last July. If we are to move forward as a country, we must move forward together, and that includes disabled people.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I understand that Sir Roger may already have made this point, but about 23 colleagues are still waiting to speak and we have roughly 88 minutes left. At four minutes each, most of you will get in. If you choose to take eight minutes each, half of you will get in. I will allow colleagues to make the decision as to whether they wish to help each other.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who is my constituency neighbour. I welcome and value his testimony and his authenticity of purpose in what he said.
I wish to speak in favour of my new clause 5, which I am pleased to say has been supported by many of my colleagues representing both inland and coastal communities. My new clause would require the Government to publish, within six months of the Bill passing, an assessment of how its provisions impact on coastal communities, such as mine in North Norfolk. That is really important, because this Bill could have a huge and detrimental impact on such communities, and I am deeply concerned that the Government have once again failed to consider coastal communities in their policy. I have heard from hundreds of worried constituents, and I am sure that the same is true of my coastal colleagues from across the House—we all know that our areas are too often overlooked and not valued enough by Governments. My new clause would ensure that the Government have to take account of how our areas will be particularly harmed by such badly thought-out changes.
What is on the face of the Bill as it stands will be really damaging to our coastal regions, even if we accept the Government amendments. Some of the highest rates of PIP claims are in coastal communities, as are some of the highest rates of unemployment. Considerably above-average rates of sickness, poor health and lower quality of life are found in coastal communities. If the Government press ahead with such blunt changes without supporting more people into work first, it could be catastrophic for communities all around our coastline.
Communities who are eager to get into work are faced with a litany of barriers that the Government are not doing enough to solve. We have real issues with public transport access, so for many trying to access inland employment, it is either too far or too hard to get to many jobs, or they see their pay packets eaten into disproportionately by bus or train fares. Almost one in five unemployed people have not applied for jobs or have turned down offers due to problems with transport.
This problem is even more acute among young people—both employed and not—who are nearly three times more likely than their older working age peers to turn down a job because they simply cannot get to it. These struggles extend to those accessing vocational training, which can be a new route into new trades and qualifications that are simply not accessible for many due to the distances required, or the lack of a workforce to provide the training. We have many talented people currently in receipt of PIP or UC who would be eager to train for an industry that they feel could allow them to work, but in communities such as mine the opportunities are just too lacking.
We know that the welfare system is not working—that is clear—but the Government have to stop looking at this issue as mere numbers on a balance sheet. When the Government do that and just look at ways to get to a magic number demanded by the Treasury, they ignore the people behind the numbers. There is an urgent need to tackle underemployment and, in particular, the rise in the number of young people with mental ill health being sentenced to a lifetime of worklessness. But ripping out the safety net will do nothing to help young people in coastal communities such as mine, who are three times as likely to suffer from undiagnosed mental distress than their inland equivalents in underprivileged areas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Tewkesbury is not a coastal constituency, although once a year at least it feels as though it is, but my hon. Friend’s constituency shares a lot of the issues faced by my rural constituency. What he is getting at—and this is why I will be voting against the Bill—is that it does not present the means to get people back into work. Transport is one of the most significant barriers to that, as I hope he agrees.
Steff Aquarone
I completely agree that that barrier must be addressed, and the business case is so clear and easy to see. The Government should focus on supporting employment opportunities in our coastal communities by investing in our tourism and hospitality sectors, supporting training and development opportunities, and fixing our broken transport system. Yet again, I think many of these challenges might have been raised earlier if there was a Minister for coastal communities in the Government who could speak up for us.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The hon. Member speaks with passion about coastal communities, and I share that passion because I also represent a coastal community. I am pleased that some of the barriers he has highlighted are in fact being addressed in my coastal community through the work there that has now been chosen as a trailblazer. Transport is one of those barriers, and the organisation working in Clywd North will break down transport barriers by finding routes and ways for people to get into training and work, and by paying for their transport as well. I know that the trailblazers are looking to roll that out countrywide at the end of the process. Does he agree that things can be done to overcome those barriers, including in our coastal communities?
Steff Aquarone
I look forward to the shareable case study from Clywd North when it is available, because things can be done, and doubtless they are being done, but we need to be doing them in every corner of the country and every coastal community around our country. I hope the Government accept my new clause 5 to force them to make a real assessment of how areas such as mine and that of the hon. Member’s will be affected by the proposals. However, I still urge them to scrap these badly designed changes, go back to the drawing board and come up with reforms that will support, not punish, our coastal communities.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Today, I rise not just with a heavy heart, but with huge disappointment. Despite the concessions made last week, the Bill remains a danger to disabled people, and it is not just a bad policy, but economically reckless. When we take away essential support, we do not reduce costs; we shift those costs on to the NHS, local authorities, unpaid carers and working-class communities.
Despite the hard-won concessions, this Bill remains an assault on disabled people. It is not a strategy for inclusion or support; it is a calculated effort to slash funding and vital support from those of our constituents who need it the most. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will mean £2 billion-worth of cuts, which are set to cost around 700,000 future universal credit recipients an average of £3,000 each year by 2030. The Bill will push 50,000 people into poverty and will be disastrous for people already living in poverty. I was not elected as a Labour MP to take money out of the pockets of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I wish to speak in favour of amendments 12, 13 and 17, and Liberal Democrat new clauses 2, 3, 6 and 7.
The Bill has been an absolute shambles from the start; there was no consultation with disabled people, and there has been last-minute chopping and changing. The Timms review and the removal of the PIP elements of the Bill are welcome, but the process that got us there has left disabled people in Yeovil fearful, and with little confidence in the Government. For example, my constituent Noel has unfortunately been unable to work due to a degenerative condition. He receives universal credit and has been left deeply distressed by the proposed changes; he visits my office almost daily for support. He is not alone. So many people in Yeovil have made it clear that the proposals are just unfair.
The whole point of the Bill, as far as I can tell, was to get people back into meaningful work and lower the welfare bill—things that I think we all want—but at no stage has the Bill done what is needed to help get people back into meaningful work: address the crisis in our NHS and social care system, and our growing chronic health issues. I have constituents who would have ended up homeless as a result of the original proposals, and now, without a full impact assessment, we do not really know what effect the Bill will have on our constituents. I am really concerned that people with Parkinson’s and conditions like MS will effectively be excluded, as a result of the criteria, from the higher rate of the health element of universal credit. At the very least, I urge colleagues to support amendment 17 to address that.
The original Bill was supposed to save around £5.5 billion, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the amended version will deliver basically no savings over the next four years, as over that period, the forecast savings from reducing the universal credit health element for new claimants will be offset or exceeded by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance. What is the actual point of this Bill?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend and neighbour’s constituency, like mine, is extremely rural; he will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is four to five times higher than it is in urban areas. PIP allows people to live independently. Both my hon. Friend and I see integrated care boards that are under extreme financial pressure. We will end up paying one way or another—we might as well give people the independence to live freely while we do it.
Adam Dance
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. We will see a huge impact from ICBs having to make a 50% cut. We are already seeing the impact in Yeovil, as hon. Members will have heard me say. The maternity unit has had its funding cut, and is being shut for six months.
The Bill was not produced with disabled people; lots of its content is being removed; there is no impact assessment; and the Bill is not likely to make any real savings. This tells me that the Government should go back to the drawing board, and either withdraw the Bill, or adopt the Lib Dem amendments and new clauses that require proper consultation and impact assessments. Either way, the Government must stop making decisions about disabled people without them.
I thank some Labour Back Benchers for having a backbone and voting against their Government in support of disabled people. I hope they do so again today.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I rise to disagree with Opposition new clause 12, which would indefinitely block the provisions of the Bill. I am speaking today not only as the MP for Beckenham and Penge, but from personal experience, as one of the few Members of this House who has been a recipient of the higher rates of the disability living allowance and mobility allowance, and having relied on a Motability car throughout my teenage years. I will speak to why the provisions in the Bill are so welcome, and to the damage that the Conservative new clause would do to it.
First, this legislation and the wider debate we are having do not exist in a vacuum. The Bill cannot be separated from the impact of more than a decade of savage cuts to our NHS and community care services, which have led to what one NHS manager describes as “medieval” levels of untreated illness. In poorer parts of the country in particular, community care has been decimated, and A&E attendance has almost doubled since 2010. This country now has the lowest life expectancy in western Europe, one of the highest rates of preventable deaths among rich countries, and one of the lowest numbers of neighbourhood nurses and GPs per head among wealthy nations. The dismantling of preventive care has not only brought our NHS to the brink; it has done more than anything else to drive the increase that we are discussing in the number of people who are on health-related benefits and who are disabled. I can speak to that from personal experience.
When I was 13, I had an accident in which I shattered my right hip. It left me unable to walk for four years. I needed nearly 10 major operations on the NHS at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, and when I was a sixth former, I became one of the youngest people in the country to have a hip replacement. When I had my first hip replacement in the 2000s, under a Labour Government, the average waiting time for a hip replacement in Britain was under nine weeks, although, thanks to the staff at the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, I was seen even quicker. I then received excellent rehabilitation care, with hydrotherapy every other day.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, the waiting list for a hip replacement has trebled from nine weeks to 27 weeks. That is up from two months to more than six months. It is not uncommon in Britain today to wait up to two years for a hip replacement, and rehabilitation services are non-existent.
This situation is replicated for other treatments. The Nuffield Trust notes that there was an increase in waiting times of nearly 300% for respiratory medicine services under the previous Government. The ballooning of NHS waiting lists and the list of people on health-related benefits go hand in hand, so we cannot divorce progress on the issues that we are discussing today from progress on the NHS. We are already seeing great strides forward. Following record investment from this Government, our NHS is on track to achieve a target of 92% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. There has also been investment in rehabilitation services, such as hydrotherapy, which are essential.
We must also understand this debate in the context of cuts to other community and preventive services, including programmes such as Sure Start. I was very proud to have had the opportunity to work for Tessa Jowell, who created Sure Start under the last Labour Government. Tessa understood the importance of a child’s first 1,000 days, and designed Sure Start as an early intervention programme, which had a significant and positive impact on the long-term outcomes for hundreds of thousands of families and children in this country. The programme was savagely cut by the previous Government in one of the most short-sighted and cruel things that they did over 14 years. That has led to increased hospital admissions. Evidence shows that young people who had access to Sure Start were more likely to be in very good or excellent health.
Alongside this investment and the great progress that this Government are making on health, we also need to reform the DWP and the systems around health-related benefits in this country. That is why opposing new clause 12 is so important today.
I want to touch on what happens when a person has had medical treatment and is looking to get back into the world of work, and also on the right to try, which is in the Bill. In essence, the Bill says that trying work will not trigger a PIP award review or work capability assessment. The importance of this is borne out in research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published in November last year, which said that almost three quarters of work-related disability benefit claimants whom it surveyed cited a fear of losing benefits as a significant or very significant barrier to work.
The right to try matters, because people with a disability or a significant health condition often will not know what they are capable of doing until they have tried to do it. They may not know what adjustments they will need to get back to work. Eight years ago, I was told that I would need a series of operations on my ankle and knee, followed by a second hip replacement—a revision to the one that I had received a decade earlier. After this, I optimistically thought that I would be able to return to work five days a week in the office as soon as I could walk unaided. I was not able to do so; it would take several months for me to do that again. I was fortunate that I had been with my employer for several years, and I had six months’ unpaid leave, which allowed me to try and initially fail to get back to work. However, for anyone relying on support from the DWP today, the reality is often very different.
We have a perverse and inflexible system in this country, which has been designed to penalise and issue sanctions, rather than incentivise and provide support. It is a broken welfare system, designed by the previous Government, that is failing people. It traps people by telling them that the only way to get help is to declare that they will never work again. It creates a climate of fear—a fear that if they try to work, they will lose their support. This Government are absolutely right to challenge and reform the system, and I am fully behind them doing so. If implemented well, the right to try will make a really big difference to getting people back to work, and will go some way to dismantling the fear that surrounds the DWP for disabled people. It is a positive measure that will empower disabled people, rather than patronise or infantilise them. It has been campaigned on for decades. It is long overdue, so I am pleased to see it in the Bill.
Finally, I wish to touch on co-production. I am pleased to see it in the Bill, but new clause 12 would block it. Co-production brings people together. It leads to policy that is more person-centred and effective, and outcomes that are more equitable and sustainable. It is not only essential in all conversations about disability policy, but particularly important when legislation passes through a Chamber like this one, which so starkly under-represents the voices and lived experiences of disabled people.
Although disabled people make up 20% of the population, only 2% of MPs are disabled. I think everyone in this Chamber has received an A1 print-out of an election map. I have one in my office. The top right-hand corner of that poster lists the women, ethnic minority, and LGBT MPs, but it has never been lost on me that there are no disabled MPs included.
Disabled people are a marginalised minority who are so often overlooked in every corner of public life. As we look to reform our welfare system and the institutions across society, I hope we will stick true to the principle of co-production so that services and policies are designed and implemented in a way that empowers disabled people and meets their real needs.
Ms Creasy
At Committee stage, we often table amendments to try to understand the nature of the legislation. Many questions are being put forward in this concertinaed process. The first is whether we should make policy by phone-in rather than on an evidence base. That is the only justification I can see for new clause 12 tabled by the Opposition, who appear not to understand that no recourse to public funds guides the lives of many migrants in our community. It contains a fundamentally un-British perspective on people who come here and work for many years in our national health service, and who then have a stroke or perhaps develop MS. Under the Opposition’s proposals, we would deny such people the support they have paid into as taxpayers. It is a dog whistle so loud that I fear the dogs in Battersea right now are having a terrible time. We should not make policy by phone-in but by evidence, and I pay tribute to the incredible words of my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who bring their own experiences to this debate.
I will speak to new clause 4, which I tabled, as well as to other amendments. Those amendments come from my experience of what makes good policymaking in this place and from my concern that we need to protect our constituents from the vagaries of public policy. I think in particular of a 62-year-old constituent of mine who is physically disabled with a mobility condition called ankylosing spondylitis—I will tell Hansard how to spell that. She works full time and lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her. Removing, messing around with and playing with her benefits—as this Bill would do for millions of people around this country—will not save money; it will simply cost more. My constituent would struggle to get to work and to look after herself, which she can do using the welfare support that she gets under the current system. That means we will face higher costs in the long run.
I wish that Members would learn from the evidence on the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax was brought in under the same metric that we heard from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer here—that somehow people who are supported by our welfare system are probably making it up. This is not a moral argument I am making; the bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to save, because it just pushed costs into other parts of the public sector. That is why it is so important that agree to new clause 4 and weave the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into this legislation. It should be guided by principle not prejudice—in particular the principle that we should respect our fellow human beings and our constituents who have a disability.
New clause 4 covers the question of co-production, and on this point I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) is not in her place. I want to come back to that question, because there is a very important principle about co-production that we have not bottomed out, and I want to hear from the Minister about it. There is a simple premise that we signed up to in the UN convention, which I hope Members across the House would support, that there should be an adequate standard of living—that is identified in article 28. Crucially, article 19 also sets out that there should be an independent living process for our disabled constituents. That is why in 2017, 2024 and indeed 2025, when the UN criticised the previous Government, we rightly held them to account for it. What do we wish for our disabled constituents, if not an independent and equal standard of living? What do we wish for them, if not the basic human right to be treated equally? We must recognise that the world we live in does not work for them, and we must account for that through our welfare system so that they can live freely and, yes, play a part in the world of work while also living with dignity.
It is about very practical things, such as the freedom that comes from someone having a carer who helps them get dressed so that they can go to work. That is supported by our welfare system. It is also about travel costs, especially for those living in my constituency, where Transport for London seems to be hellbent on breaking down all of the stations so that they are not accessible. Covering those costs means that someone can go out to see family and friends. There is also the food that someone might need if they have a condition like phenylketonuria—a metabolic condition that means a person needs a low protein diet. These are not equal experiences, but by using our welfare state to support those people, we can have ensure that they have the human rights we wish them to have.
New clause 4 is about giving due regard to the principles set out in the UN charter so that benefits are calculated in a way that means they are sufficient to allow people to live a life of freedom equally alongside their fellow human beings. The payments we make must meet those tests so that disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses. That is a question that many hard-working people who are struggling at the moment in their lives can recognise well.
It is about levelling the playing field. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, about making fools of us all. Those are principles that I hope the Government will commit to weaving throughout the legislation. That is why new clause 4 matters: it goes beyond the principle of co-production, which I know the Minister has recognised, to the basic principle of how we treat people. That would apply to the universal credit health element of the Bill. If we restricted a benefit, it would call on us to ask why we consider somebody to need X amount at this point in time but Y amount in the future, and to ask whether that will live up to the required standard of living.
I want to touch on co-production in particular. Many have talked about it, but people do not necessarily understand what it means. It is not consultation. Co-production means that whoever is included can say no as well as yes. Without a power of veto, all we have is a better managed consultation. Co-production genuinely empowers every participant to shape things, because they can walk out of the room as well as being part of it.
The Minister has talked about seeking consensus, but it is not an equal relationship if disabled people are not given the clear power to veto what is put on the table, such that the Government have to work with them so that they do not use their veto. That is the principle of co-production—that is why it is not consultation—and that is what we should be seeking.
I have much sympathy for new clause 8—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is not in his place—because I was here in 2015 when George Osborne used statutory instruments to slash the tax credits that our constituents relied on and 3 million people were pushed further into poverty. I was also here when MPs on both sides of the House expressed frustration about the use of that process. We had to watch the House of Lords clear up our mess and stand up to the Chancellor for using delegated legislation to take £1,300 away from our constituents. I hope the Minister will understand that this is not about this individual Bill or even about his good intentions; I know that he has engaged with all of us. It is about the principle that if we are to change the law, we should be able to amend and adjust that law and scrutinise it on behalf of our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) set out many alternative ways in which we could switch spending to invest in order to save money in the long run. There are many different ways in which we can support our economy to grow; it does not have to be off the backs of our disabled constituents. There is also the important principle here—I know many on the Labour Benches believe this—that socialism is the language of priorities. Our priority must be to empower and enable every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential—and yes, that happens through a growing economy, and also through a welfare state.
I hope that the Minister will address the amendments that seek to ask questions about how we get this right. For many of us those unanswered questions are troubling —we cannot bring back answers for our constituents—because they tell us that we may not achieve those things that I have set out. None of us who have lived through George Osborne and the bedroom tax ever want to go back to that again. We want to be able to say to our constituents, who might find themselves in the position of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, that we can absolutely be proud of the system we are building today, just as we are proud of my hon. Friend himself.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them.
I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities.
This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one.
DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future.
A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care.
This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones.
I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of a variety of amendments, which I will mention as I go. In the life of an MP, not a day goes by without hearing from a constituent with an issue relating to benefits or health. We can all think of the people we have met who have suffered badly after 14 years of austerity imposed by the Conservative party. Our sick, disabled and vulnerable were left trapped in a doom loop, living hand to mouth and battling worsening mental health, while fighting a broken system that fails far too many.
I doubt many hon. Members in this Chamber have personal experience of the cruel welfare system. I do. I first became ill at work with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, which is a heart condition. Not long after, I suffered a pulmonary embolism and almost lost my life. That was followed by a total mental breakdown. Punitive sickness policies meant I was soon being managed out of the job I loved so much by human resources, which refused to acknowledge the recommendations of occupational health.
I was in receipt of universal credit for about a year, receiving £690 a month, but that did not even cover my rent and bills, and I was at risk of losing my rented home. Thankfully, I had friends and family to support me, but not everyone is that fortunate. My confidence plummeted, and the feelings of failure, rejection and uselessness at not being able to sustain myself were all-consuming. Nobody chooses this life. In fact, just yesterday the United Nations wrote to the Government stating that the rhetoric, language and false statements used when discussing welfare is damaging, as well as raising concerns about human rights violations.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I will speak to the Government amendments and against some other amendments. Before I was elected, I worked for the trade union Unison where I was the national officer for disability equality. In that job, I saw every day how disabled people who love their jobs are often pushed out of the workplace by employers who refuse to make the small changes that would help them to thrive at work.
Through the Mayfield review, this Labour Government are seizing the opportunity to finally make the workplace more accessible for disabled people. The Employment Rights Bill will bring in flexible working, allowing disabled workers to perhaps start a little later in the morning when tablets have kicked in or to work from home to avoid the painful morning rush hour. Alongside that, I have also introduced my own Bill for a deadline for employer responses to reasonable adjustment requests from disabled workers. We are transforming the workplace for disabled people, and Labour is also making work pay. No longer will it be a choice between benefits and a bargain basement job. We have increased wages for 3 million low-paid workers, committed to introducing mandatory disability pay gap monitoring and delivered the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.
Government new clause 1 and associated amendments will ensure that for those who cannot work, their universal credit health benefit will increase in line with inflation. The Bill ends the absolute indignity of constant reassessments for those with severe conditions. Almost 15,000 families in Ealing Southall will also see the basic rate of universal credit increase by a record amount, lifting thousands of children out of poverty across the country. New clause 12 would rob those 15,000 families of that money—it must be rejected.
It cannot be right that almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick, 1 million young people are not earning or learning, and a thousand people a day are applying for PIP. We are an outlier internationally. No other country in the world sees the same massive increase in people on sickness-related benefits. It is unique to this country, and we do no favours to people with long-term conditions by ignoring it. The Tories created this broken system where people are better off on sickness benefits than in work and there is no help for those who want a job. Everyone knows the system needs reform, but amendments 2(a), amendment 2(b) from the Chair of the Select Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), Conservative amendments 50 to 55, and new clause 12 would continue to put reform on the long finger and delay change.
Last August, after 14 years of the Tories, when I visited west Ealing jobcentre and asked who I could speak to if I was a disabled person who needed a job that would work around my needs, I was told there was no one—no one at all. That is why we need change now. Under Labour, west London is one of the 14 Get Britain Working trailblazers across the country. People on long-term sickness benefits with back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions, which are the second biggest reason why people claim health-related benefits, have been contacted and asked if they want help to get a job, and hundreds have replied that they do. They have been sat there waiting for us to contact them. Those people were ignored by the previous Government—people who wanted to work but were left on the scrapheap.
Some £8 million from the Government is helping west Londoners into work. The Bill is part of a much bigger £1 billion plan to extend that to every jobcentre and to every disabled person who wants a good job. The new right to try will build a more flexible benefits system that does not force people to put themselves in a box, locked out of work for ever, but allows them to try work without losing benefits.
I am glad that the Government have ensured that no one on PIP will lose it, and that they will co-produce the PIP review with disabled people—it has been over a decade since the PIP system was last reviewed, and since then we have learned more about the impact of mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions—but true co-production means letting the review go ahead without this House trying to control it, so we must reject the rigidness of new clauses 8 and 11 in favour of true co-production.
Disabled people were let down again and again by the previous Government. Labour is finally delivering equality for disabled workers while fixing the broken system that forces almost 3 million people to languish on long-term sickness benefits without help. If colleagues across the House genuinely want reform that builds a better, more flexible benefits system that makes work pay, takes 50,000 children out of poverty and properly supports disabled people who cannot work, they must do more than just talk about it; they must vote for the Bill and get on with the job of changing Britain for the better.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 11, amendment 38 and the Bill more broadly. This informed debate has been conducted respectfully. Throughout the entire process, it has been illuminating to hear from so many Members with such in-depth personal, familial and professional experience. I urge those on the Government Front Bench to look upon such Members from across the House as a resource, because they speak with great authority. I mention in particular the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), which were so informative.
May I correct one earlier comment? We heard from one Opposition Member that “no recourse to public funds” means “recourse to public funds.” Well, the clue is in the descriptor. I know that Boris Johnson struggled with that, but “no recourse to public funds” means exactly what it says.
I wish to speak about the impact were the House to pass amendment 2. I recognise that the amendment adopts some of the previously announced concessions and somewhat limits the damage of clause 2. But let me be clear: even with the amendment, the clause is not acceptable. The Bill is not welfare reform; it is a cut—deliberate, far-reaching and deeply damaging. Even after amendments, clause 2 will remove £2 billion from disabled people in the years ahead. Three quarters of those affected are already in material deprivation. Around 750,000 individuals—people who are too ill to work—stand to lose an average of £3,000 a year. Members must consider today which constituents whose doors they knock on will find themselves £3,000 a year worse off. The weekly top-up for those too unwell to work, which is currently £97, will fall to £50 for new applicants—the same condition and need as current claimants, but half the support. That is not fairness; it is the creation of a two-tier welfare system. We are not talking about abstractions; we are talking about people who cannot walk 50 metres, or who need constant supervision, or who cannot operate a keypad unaided. They currently receive £423 per month. Soon, some could receive as little as £217 per month. That is not a budget decision; it is a moral one.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
One amendment tabled by the Conservatives seeks to strip foreign nationals of the right to claim benefits. That could mean that some people are left with no support whatsoever, which could include my father, who has been in this country for 40 years and paid into the system. The amendment tabled by the Conservatives is absolutely despicable, and I invite the hon. Member to join me in agreeing with that statement.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We have to raise our heads and look at our brothers and sisters, who are actively and economically engaged in our country, and think about the contribution they make and the payments they make into the Treasury, through tax and national insurance. We must treat them with dignity and respect, rather than trying to other them at every opportunity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member makes an incredibly powerful and telling point about the disincentive of trying to get into work for people who have a varying and fluctuating condition, such as MS. That is an unanswerable point and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. Does he agree with me that in conversations that the Minister has with what we are too lazily inclined to refer to as “the disabled community”, unless we are able to break down disabled groups into those who have a permanent condition and those who have a fluctuating condition, and to individually tailor responses to that, it will be a missed opportunity to get this right?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes an important point, and it is critical that that is reflected on the face of the Bill. With all sincerity, we cannot walk away from here thinking that guidance notes are enough. They may change fundamentally in further iterations and say something completely different from what this honourable and decent Minister is saying to us today. Policy for disabled people must be made with them, not imposed upon them.
If we are serious about ending austerity, we cannot keep balancing the books on the backs of the poorest. That means revisiting not just what we spend, but who we tax and how. We have heard about the party of millionaires making their case that this country has done so well by them—they are so privileged to have made a success of their lives and to have flourished—that they are looking at the opportunities they were given and saying, “Please, we can make a further contribution.” It is they who made the argument about a wealth tax that would raise £24 billion. Nigel Lawson, when he was Chancellor, thought that the differential between capital gains tax and income tax was an anathema, and he equalised it, so there are opportunities for us there.
The Employment Rights Bill also presents us with wonderful opportunities. If we could grasp the issue of “single status of worker” and deal with the issue of bogus self-employment, limb (b) employment, zero-hours contracts and the rest of it, that not only represents secure, well-paid, unionised work for people to give them a flourishing life; it also gives us the opportunity to collect currently uncollected tax and national insurance, to the tune of £10 billion per annum. That would also mean supporting people according to their needs. That is not Marx, but the Acts of the Apostles.
This is a moment of reckoning. The country expects better. If we are to lose our nerve now, we will lose more than a vote: we will lose the trust that brought us here. We must reflect that during our discussions about the Bill, each and every one of us has heard the response from our constituents and our offices that this has been a shambles—there is no other word to describe it. Now is the moment to stop the cuts and I implore the Government to rethink the Bill.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I rise to support my new clause 10, as well as a number of other amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 8, new clause 11 and amendment 38.
I welcome the concessions that the Government have made to the Bill, which I will be supporting. I pay tribute to the disabled and chronically ill people whose tireless campaigning led to those concessions—I have been proud to stand with them. However, the changes do not alleviate all my concerns about the Bill. One in three disabled people are already in poverty. The Bill, even after the Government’s amendments, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future, at a time when the extra cost of being disabled is set to rise by 12% in the next five years.
The Government’s analysis states that the measures in the Bill will lift 50,000 people out of poverty. However, analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation shows that they would actually push 50,000 disabled people into poverty. We know that benefit cuts and loss of payments help to trap women experiencing domestic abuse, make children grow up in poverty and even cost lives, like that of my constituent Philippa Day, who died from a deliberate overdose after her benefits were wrongly cut.
This is particularly pertinent to those with fluctuating conditions, who risk losing LCWRA status during periods of temporary improvement. That is why amendment 38 is so vital, as it would ensure that they are protected. Even with the Government’s concessions, not a single disabled people’s organisation supports this Bill. It is at the request of the disabled people’s organisations forum in England that I have tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish a human rights memorandum before the Bill can be enacted.
No analysis of the impact of the Bill on the human rights of disabled people has been published so far. Last year, the UN found that there had been further regression in the “grave and systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights in the UK, which it reported on in 2016. Last night, the UN wrote to the Government to say that it had “received credible information” indicating that the Bill will “deepen” that regression. We should not proceed with the Bill as it stands.
Disabled people’s organisations remain sceptical about the Timms review into PIP. I am hopeful that the Government will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), which would make provision for commitments around co-production and oversight. They must also support new clause 8, which would ensure that changes from the Timms review are introduced as primary legislation. That is essential in ensuring democratic scrutiny—otherwise, MPs will not be able to amend or vote on the legislation. It would also prevent a reduction in eligibility for PIP, which we know would be disastrous and which motivated so many of us on the Government Benches to call on the Government to think again.
I joined the Labour party because of what I experienced and witnessed growing up as a child and a teenager under the Conservatives. As a disabled MP, I have first-hand experience of the disability benefits system. We have all met constituents who are already not getting the support they need. The question today is this: do we let their number grow? If the answer is no, I urge Members to support the amendments that would strengthen protections for disabled people and, ultimately, to vote down this Bill.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, because I think they get to the heart of the unfairness contained within it.
There can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that trust was eroded between the Government and disabled people’s organisations—that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over the coming months. We should therefore recognise that a positive step in that direction is the Government’s decision to pause on the issue of PIP reform and to place those decisions in the hands of the Timms review. However, that is not enough, because the Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for more than 750,000 future claimants.
From next April, we will have created a two-tier benefits system based not on health needs, but on the date when a claim was made. In fact, there are already nearly 4.8 million disabled people living in poverty today across the country. That is a damning indictment of our welfare system and should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not to make it go even higher.
The numbers are stark. Taking £3,000 a year, or £250 a month, from disabled people’s income will force families to a crisis point and into further reliance on food banks. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims that if the cuts are not removed, an additional 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, three quarters of all universal credit health element recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live. If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefits system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of universal credit would not also be part of the Timms review.
Ian Lavery
Is my hon. Friend aware that 25% of those claiming the health element of universal credit used a food bank last year, or that a third of those who claim it could not afford to heat their homes last year?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Last week, I voted against the Government because I was not happy with the proposals on the table. When the Bill was initially put forward, I was particularly concerned about the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria, which in my view were arbitrary and risked taking support from those who need it most. I am glad to say that the Government have listened and acted.
As a result of Government amendment 4, which will remove changes to PIP eligibility, alongside making other positive changes, I can now—carefully and with reservations—support the Bill as amended. The removal of changes to PIP eligibility criteria from this Bill protects carers and prevents the consequential loss of carer’s allowance. As a former carer, that is important to me.
I have put a lot of thought into this issue over the preceding weeks. I have listened to my constituents, and I have been thinking about what is important to them. Not only have the amendments removed the changes to PIP that I was worried about, but the Bill will now include vital increases to the basic level of universal credit. I do not feel able to vote against that today.
We inherited a heck of a mess from the last Conservative Government, and I do not think anyone disagrees that there is a need for change. We need a system that is well designed, that works, and that is fair to both claimants and other taxpayers, so I welcome the ministerial review of the PIP assessment. Co-production with disabled people and the organisations that represent them is particularly welcome. Conducting a thorough review in genuine co-production, leading to well-thought-out proposals for reform, is the right thing to do.
Simon Hoare
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady is putting the cart before the horse, as are the Government. You do your review first, you find out what it says, and you tailor your policies and your response to it. Is that not the best way of making policy? This half-baked idea satisfies no one.
Lizzi Collinge
I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the bit where the Government are taking out clause 5 and the measures on the PIP eligibility criteria, and are doing the review first, but I thank him for his intervention.
I will hold the Government to account for their promises about the review. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and support her new clause 11.
This debate has involved a huge raft of different issues, and they have been conflated at times, so before I talk about the other changes that I support, I want to emphasise that PIP is not just an out-of-work benefit. It is claimed by people both in and out of work, and it is there to help with the extra costs associated with disabilities and long-term conditions. However, there is also a huge disability employment gap, and a great many people who want to work cannot, simply for lack of a bit of support—some health treatment, or an employer who will make reasonable adjustments. I am therefore pleased that plans for employment support have been brought forward, and that there will be extra investment earlier.
I should make it clear that my concerns always focused on a small part of the broader reform package, but for reasons of time, I will not go into them. These are vital steps towards fixing the system. I will not say that I have no concerns left—I have, which is why I support amendment 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—but no policy or solution will be perfect. No Green Paper can address everything, and no legislation can get everything right.
In these past few weeks, I have been reminded of something that my friend Joe once said to me: “Politics is not a game to be played. It’s people’s lives, and people’s lives matter.” No wonder our constituents have so little faith in our political system, when what should have been a debate about the rights and wrongs of a policy and about the lives of those constituents has turned into a debate about the Westminster bubble, not the people we serve. The Westminster bubble ought to be popped, and quickly.
The views of the House have been made clear over the last couple of weeks, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I will always speak out, as I know my colleagues will, without fear or favour, and we will always fight for a better, fairer welfare system for everyone.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I rise to support the removal of clause 5 and the associated amendments, and to comment on a few other amendments, based on what I have read and learned.
Many things have been said in this debate, in the Chamber and outside, but it is undeniable that the system is not working for far too many people. We see a welfare bill rising, people trapped on benefits, and opportunities lost. The most heartbreaking part of all this is not the monetary cost, which we seem to talk about too much, but the cost to people of being written off, and spending a lifetime in a failed, broken system. We all hear stories every week, through our casework and in our surgeries, of people who want to work but do not have the necessary support; of the intrusive nature of assessments; of bureaucracy that needs a human touch; of people fearing to try work for fear of losing their benefits; and of disabled people who need more support.
One of my hon. Friends, who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about the broken social contract. While we approach this debate, and this subject, with the compassion and care that are needed, we should also be clear that the social contract is already broken. There is nothing honourable about denying or slowing down action to tackle the problem of 2.8 million people being thrown on the scrapheap for being sick, or long-term sick. There is nothing to cherish from the Conservatives, who left this Government a legacy of nearly 1 million young people thrown on the scrapheap, not in employment, not in education and not in any meaningful walk of life. No one can say that the system is not broken, and that is the spirit in which many of us in this Chamber have sought, from different perspectives, to approach this legislation. I want to speak against amendments that seek to delay or wreck this Bill, because whatever happens next, we need to get going.
One of the criticisms of this Government that I sometimes hear is that we do not move fast enough. Now that we have started to fix our broken welfare system, we are being told by some that we are going too fast. I think we can move forward with a Bill that begins to fix the foundations of our welfare system, and do so with compassion for those most in need, and I welcome contributions that we have heard today. I also welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to our concerns about the Bill and decided last week to remove clause 5, because it caused anxiety not just to Members of this House, but to many people outside who saw the risk.
Bringing the Timms review forward before any changes are made, and committing to fully involving disabled people and their organisations, is the right thing to do; the Government have listened. I recognise many of the points made in passionate speeches, and I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I hope the Minister will address that, and assure the House that the sentiment has been taken on board, because the new clause will make the Bill better, not worse, and clear the fog.
It is important that we push ahead with this Bill. As colleagues have said, work is central to Labour’s mission, because dignity comes from good work and from employers who embrace their employees and give people the ability to work. There is no dignity in allowing 2.8 million people to be thrown on the scrapheap, with no ability to get off it.
Tom Hayes
I recognise exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, because both my parents were forced out of work. They were unwell, and could not get the support they needed from the NHS. They could not get a foot in the door of the social security system and, as their health got worse, they got further away from the workforce. I wish that we had had better support for them.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is positive that the Government are open to setting a disability employment target, which could drive action? In my constituency of Bournemouth East, the rate stands at an unacceptable 24% after 14 years of the Conservatives.
Andrew Pakes
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a powerful case for why our job today is to fix the Bill, not kill it.
We should be passionate about the centrality and dignity of work. Unemployed young people in my constituency, and those who are disabled, are frustrated by a system that does not work, and they want the Government to work with them to fix it. That mission was true 80 years ago, when the post-war Attlee Government were elected to pick up the pieces following the devastation of the second world war. Similarly, our Government’s mission today is to fix the foundations of a broken welfare system and a broken economy.
As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the welfare trap on young people. I represent a city with one of the highest levels of—this is a horrible phrase—young people who are NEET, or not in employment, education or training, and who are starting their adult life on benefits. We know that the trend has not been helped by the failure of the mental health system and the health system, which has put pressure on people without offering them any help or support to get them through.
I am a passionate advocate of apprenticeships. It cannot be right that so many young people in Peterborough and around the country are starting their adult lives on benefits, and I agree that we should not be paying benefits so that young people can stay at home. We should be investing in young people’s ability to earn, learn and train.
I hope the Minister will expand on those points when he comes to respond to the debate, because it is morally, politically and economically right that young people should be earning and learning, and it is right that we proceed with this Bill. Following the removal of clause 5, I am content that this Bill begins the journey of fixing the system. It is the start, not the end, but it is a start we need to make.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the many amendments that attempt to improve this Bill, which I signed in desperation, because I did not enter politics to strip vital support from those who need it, yet the Bill does exactly that. We are the party that created the welfare state, so we know the welfare state is not a handout—sadly, the debate on this Bill has characterised it as such—but a lifeline. Proposing to take that lifeline away from anyone who may need it is a betrayal of those we are elected to serve.
While I welcome the Government stepping back on some elements of the Bill, I do not believe they have gone far enough. As it stands, £2 billion is still set to be cut from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes, which cannot be right. That is why I am pleased to support amendment (a) to amendment 2, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), to scrap the cut to the universal credit health element entirely. We have to realise that disability rights organisations still do not support the cut at all. The impact assessments that do exist are inadequate or worrying, and thousands will still be pushed into poverty.
In truth, the announcement of the Timms review does little to quell my fears. This Government-led review will take place after the Bill takes effect. Whether or not the review is co-produced, the Government will be taking support away from disabled people and then consulting them on their views after the fact. The toxicity around the Bill means that it is being criticised by those whom it is meant to support, and that is really not a good start.
While I am pleased that the points element has been removed from the Bill, I still share the concerns held by many disability rights groups about what the Bill will truly mean for disabled people. That is why I have signed my name to amendments that will go some way towards making the Bill somewhat more humane. Amendment 38, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), would protect those with fluctuating conditions. New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and new clause 11, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), would fix concerns about the Timms review by ensuring it is followed by primary legislation and by mandating its implementation and co-production with disabled people.
Other amendments that I support include those to protect carers and to ensure that due regard is given to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We would be wrong to ignore the UN’s warning that the Bill will worsen the rights of disabled people. We have to remember that PIP allows many disabled people to access work. Cutting support does not incentivise work, but prevents it. The claim that these reforms would have boosted employment simply does not hold up. Let us not forget that the Bill was published three weeks ago, and was gutted on Second Reading with a further week to rush it through Parliament. That is no way to legislate on matters with such serious consequences.
We have a health crisis in our nation, especially in respect of mental health, and the answer is not to take financial support away from those who need it. If we want to reduce the number of people off work due to physical or mental ill health, we have to continue to address the issues in our healthcare system, and get on with the plans to allow people to access appointments and assessments to stop their ailments worsening. This is not how welfare reform should be carried out, and even at this late stage I urge the Government to throw this Bill out. Some may say that that would be mad, but surely it cannot be worse than what we have been doing this week.
We have to be frank about why the Bill was introduced. It was primarily about saving money, but it would balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. I am really tired of how we talk about the economy and about growth in this House as though this is a household bill and we can cut this or cut that. No one seems to ask a good economist and find out that we are meant to invest for growth. People keep telling me that I am young, which is patronising—and it is not even that true any more—but I still cannot find anyone who can give me an example of a time in history when cuts to public services or welfare have solved the issues of the day. That is the case again and again, and those discussions need to end.
There are many other ways in which we can save money. As many Members have pointed out, we could end tax loopholes or have a wealth tax. I was pleased to add my name to amendment 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which would scrap third-party PIP assessments. US multinationals are making millions of pounds out of those assessments, while humiliating people and/or getting it wrong.
We are told that all this is about getting people into work, but I just cannot see how we can continue to hold on to that idea. I reiterate that it may seem bad to drop the Bill at this late stage, but it cannot be worse than the debate we have had over the past couple of weeks.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Sometimes politics seems complicated. Sometimes the passage of a Bill through Parliament, especially with antics and shenanigans like those we saw last week, may confuse people. But actually, the issue before all of us when we vote tonight is very simple. Today, Wednesday 9 July 2025, are Labour MPs going to vote through cuts to universal credit that will take £2 billion from 750,000 sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes—people who will have been judged not fit to work? Will we put our name to a Bill that will, on average, take £3,000 off every single one of those 750,000 people? I think that if we had not had the complications with the Bill the week before, Labour MPs would find it very easy. They would see a Bill that asks us to take billions of pounds from low-income people in our constituencies across the country and find it very easy to vote no.
I ask my friends on the Labour Benches to cast their minds back to when they were first selected and first elected. None of us got into politics to take £3,000 a year off low-income people who are sick and disabled and on universal credit. It has been said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. People outside this Chamber see the issue before us very clearly indeed. The Bill is being railroaded through, disabled people’s voices are being excluded, and when colleagues say, “Don’t listen to those who say we shouldn’t press on,” that means, “Don’t listen to disabled people.” I think we should listen to disabled people, and not one disabled people’s organisation supports the changes.
The reason the Bill is being rushed through a Committee of the whole House, rather than a Committee where disabled people and their organisations—people with lived experience—could talk to the MPs on the Committee, is because of a politically imposed artificial deadline that is there to save face. I welcome the changes made last week as a result of pressure from disabled people and Back-Bench MPs, but we are voting tonight on taking money off people on low incomes. We are voting tonight on whether we think, after saying last week that it was wrong to have a two-tier PIP system, that it is right to have a two-tier universal credit system.
The reality is that people will remember how we vote tonight. It has been said before, but I will say it again: some votes define us. They define us as politicians and they define how we view our time in Parliament. Disabled people who come to see us in our constituency surgeries will not understand if we, as Labour people, vote for this cut to universal credit tonight or abstain. We will live with that vote in every single constituency surgery between now and the next general election.
Let us take a step back and imagine that we did not have a Whip system in this House. Of course, all of us agree on 99% of things all the time. That is the reality, but if this were not a whipped vote, I think the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote with their conscience and with their disabled constituents against cutting universal credit. All the rest is sophistry. We will live with this vote. It is often said that the longer the statement on Twitter from an MP after a vote, the worse the decision they must have made. You start at the first sentence and by the time you get to the end, the constituents are thinking, “Did they? Did they really vote for that after all they said on the TV, in their tweets and in the Chamber?”
We are Labour people. This is not a left and right issue in the Labour party; this is a right and wrong issue. I say this: any Labour MP who votes against these cuts to low-income people on universal credit tonight will sleep soundly, knowing that they did all they could, on £90,000-odd a year, to stand up for their disabled constituents. That is what we got into politics to do. We should not plough ahead. We should vote this out.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak against amendment (a) to amendment 2, amendments 45 and 52, and new clause 12.
The creation of the modern welfare state by the 1945 Labour Government remains one of our proudest legacies. At its heart was the powerful idea that people should be protected from hardship and supported to realise their full potential. Underpinning that vision was a clear principle: everyone who can work should work, not just for the dignity and agency work brings, but because it is the most effective route out of poverty. Children in workless households are five times more likely to grow up poor than those in households where every adult works.
That principle holds true today, but it is under strain. One in 10 working-age people is out of the labour market; among young people, that figure is one in eight. This is not a global trend, but a challenge unique to the UK, rooted in the welfare system’s design. Too often, that system locks people with health conditions and disabilities out of work; too often, it penalises attempts to get ahead and fails to offer real support; too often, it writes people off.
Disabled people in the UK have an employment rate 29% lower than those without disabilities and face a wider unemployment gap than many of their international peers. Their poverty rate is 10% higher. This is not compassion. We owe it to these individuals and to the welfare state’s founding principles to fix this problem. We cannot avoid change or fall back on impractical slogans—to do so would be to abandon those who most need help.
Yet that is what these amendments and new clauses do. I shall start with amendments 45 and 52 and new clause 12, tabled by the Opposition, whose Benches are empty. These measures reveal a lack of seriousness and of a plan. The Tories presided over this crisis of opportunity and soaring claimancy. They failed to reform the system, to address the disability employment gap or to tackle fraud, which tripled on their watch. Throughout this debate, they have been unable to explain their alternative—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), whom it is good to see in his place, recently admitted as much, saying that he could not say exactly what he would do—so they resort to gimmicks.
Amendment 45 demands that all assessments be face-to-face, forgetting that it was the Conservatives who cut face-to-face assessments by 90%. If there were an Olympic event for brass neck, they would win the gold medal every time. This proposal is unworkable, denying frontline managers discretion—a fact the Conservatives essentially admit in the small print. It is also unnecessary; unlike the Conservatives in government, this Government are restoring most assessments back to being face-to-face.
The same applies to amendment 52 and new clause 12. PIP already has strict residency and qualification rules and is needs based. These proposals would not effect meaningful change, but would slow down reform. Once again, this is gesture politics—the Conservatives do not have a plan.
While the Opposition admit a problem but offer no plan, amendment (a) to amendment 2 seems, I fear, to deny that there is a problem at all, proposing simply to remove all changes to the LCWRA. The changes those behind the amendment want to scrap are vital to rebalancing the system, which will not just remove disincentives to work but enable the largest above-inflation increase in basic jobseeker benefits since the 1970s. These benefits will rise £725 a year for 6.5 million people by 2029, helping 15,000 people in my constituency. Removing these changes risks losing measures that would lift 50,000 children out of poverty.
None of this is easy. We are talking about real lives, not abstract policies. I understand the anxiety this debate causes, but freezing the system in aspic and ignoring its failings would lock in current injustices and create future problems. We should start reform by reaffirming the system’s basic purpose: to protect and treat all with dignity, but also to empower people and give them true agency. That means recognising that some cannot work, ensuring protection for the vulnerable, and listening to and co-producing with disabled people. However, it also means ensuring that those who can work do so, offering support and holding employers to account. I believe that the Government’s proposals do so.
Just as Attlee’s Government reimagined the role of the state after the war, so we must reimagine it now after the upheavals of the pandemic, economic change and rising ill health. The world has changed, and our welfare system must do so too. We must reform the system—not in spite of Labour values, but because of them.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Colleagues have described the events surrounding this Bill as “chaotic” and “shambolic”, and they were right to do so. Sadly, by failing to consult on key elements, the Government were setting up the Bill to fail. Moreover, the Government’s impact assessment is, I fear, somewhat misleading, because it bakes in cuts that the previous Government had planned, but not actually implemented. As a result, I am somewhat cautious of some of the Government’s figures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
So here we are. Labour has had 15 years, including 14 years spent complaining about welfare reform while the Conservative Government fixed the catastrophic mess of unemployment benefits that we inherited—the alphabetti spaghetti of welfare that we had in 2010, if any of their Members can remember it. We fixed all those benefit traps, introducing universal credit, making work pay and supporting people off welfare and into jobs. In the first decade of our time in government, 100,000 fewer people were economically inactive every single year of the 2010s. In 2019 we had the lowest number of workless households since records began. Then covid hit, and Labour were clamouring for more welfare throughout that period. After the covid incident, as we left office we were introducing reforms to fix the health and disability benefits system. All of that was opposed every step of the way by Labour.
Dr Tidball
Does the shadow Minister really believe that anyone could truly think that the Conservatives ensured that disabled people were well paid when 14 years of their government led to a 17% disability pay gap?
Danny Kruger
The fact is, in our time in government we increased the number of disabled people in work significantly. Two million more disabled people were in work at the end of our time in government than before. There is much to regret about the last years of our time in government, and I was a critic of them myself, but on welfare throughout our time in government we have a proud record of improving the broken system that we inherited.
We are now a year into Labour’s time in government. They have had all this time to come up with a plan and we have absolutely nothing. Clause 5 did have some changes to the system, but they are going to scrap that today. I want to pay tribute to the rebels on the Labour Benches for finding their voice and showing what Parliament can do, and I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—the real Prime Minister sitting there on the real Front Bench. I respect and honour them all.
As for the Government Front Bench, they are chopping the Bill’s title in half. It is now nothing to do with PIP, so we have no reform to welfare and certainly no savings. This is now a spending Bill, not a savings Bill. Looking at the impact assessment that has just been published—the third in the last three weeks, I think—if we add up the savings from cutting UC health for new claims, which is a little over £5 billion, and minus the cost of raising the standard allowance, which is a little over £5 billion, we get £120 million of extra costs over the next four years, plus the £1 billion of extra employment support. Labour’s idea of saving money on welfare is to spend more by the end of the Bill’s passage. The Government have also spent the money that they thought they were saving from the PIP changes before they did the U-turn. Even now they are on a wing and a prayer financially.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, on which the tottering Chancellor has relied to hold up her sums, assumes that the on-flow to benefits will fall halfway back to their 2019 levels over this Parliament. If they do not, the Chancellor will have to find another £12 billion. Why should new claims reduce under this Government when there is still an incentive of £50 a week to get on to UC health, and there is no reform to PIP for at least another year? The Minister has also said that his famous eponymous review is not aimed at saving money anyway. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) challenged him earlier to confirm that, and I think he has confirmed from the Dispatch Box that there will be no savings from his review.
Meanwhile, the UK is haemorrhaging jobs thanks to the national insurance rise, and we have the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track. The OBR did not even include in its forecast the likely impact of the unemployment Bill that Labour is introducing. That is something we can look forward to in the autumn.
We are in a deep fiscal hole, and of course we need welfare reform—in fact, we need welfare cuts. That is why the Opposition wanted to support the Government when they set out their intentions, and we said that we would support the Bill if they reduced spending, got more people into work and pledged that there would be no new taxes, but they did none of that, so we do not support it. We do, however, have a further set of proposals.
My friend, the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), challenged me to come up with some alternatives, and we have some amendments to that very effect. First, amendment 45 would improve the quality of assessments. There is a bigger piece of work to be done, and I welcome the Government looking closely at the assessments process, but right now we could make one clear and simple improvement. In 2019, 84% of PIP assessments were conducted face to face; last year, the figure was 5%. That was a covid change—[Interruption.] That was absolutely a covid change that was not changed back in time; I totally agree. The fact is, the work-from-home culture really took off at the DWP and with its subcontractors, and that does need to change. I recognise that. Why are the Government not doing that?
As a result, in the system we have, which is not being changed by the Bill, people are at the mercy of some distant, faceless assessor on the end of the phone. Of course, there will be people who cannot manage a face-to-face assessment, and we would authorise the Secretary of State to specify circumstances for that. It is also right not to call people back for repeat assessments. That was a change that the Conservatives were introducing, and I am glad that the Government are sticking with it. But, for the great majority of cases, we have got to get back to face-to-face assessments for the sake of claimants as well as the taxpayer.
Secondly, I turn to amendment 50. We have 1,000 new PIP claims a day—that has doubled since covid—and more than half the increase is in mental health cases. For UC health claims, it is more like three quarters. Of course, distress is real in our society and it is rising—I do not disparage the reality of many of these claims—but as the Minister has said the incidence of disability in our society is rising by 17% while benefit claims are rising by 34%. For some of the less severe mental health claims, it is far worse. In January 2020, there were 7,000 claims for people with anxiety disorders; this year, there are 31,000. In January 2020, there were 155,000 claims for anxiety and depressive disorders mixed; now there are 365,000. Autism was 60,000 and has gone up to 183,000. The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned ADHD, which has gone up from 29,000 to 115,000 over the last five years.
Nadia Whittome
I wonder whether the shadow Minister realises that according to the DWP’s own statistics the PIP fraud rate is 0.2%. I do not want him to feel like a mug.
Danny Kruger
I am not talking about explicit fraud. These awards are being given, and no doubt the assessment is judging them to be eligible. There is not necessarily a deliberate attempt to defraud the system. What we have done is create a system whereby one is incentivised to seek higher and more expensive claims.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?
Olivia Blake
I want to pull up the shadow Minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years and thus there is a backlog of women now accessing their right to benefits relating to ADHD? Many women like me were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders instead of ADHD.
Danny Kruger
I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. Those disorders have also increased extraordinarily in recent years. I take her point, and I was struck by the point she made in her speech about how many people with ADHD would benefit from being in the workplace. They could be in work, and they need to be supported for that. It is not right that we are consigning so many people to a life on the sofa with the curtains drawn, being told that they have no value and no contribution to make and will receive no help. Last year, 4,000 more people got PIP because of dyslexia, which was twice the number before covid. It was 10,000 for OCD; again, that number has doubled.
I want to acknowledge that the charity Mind—of course, it wants to increase benefits, so I do not cite it in support of our amendments—has said that what people with mental health conditions need is decent mental health support, proper employment programmes and flexible workplaces. That is what is needed.
Let me finish with new clause 12. The other place where we can look for real savings is with foreign nationals claiming health and disability benefits. I am aware that many visas have no recourse to public funds, but people with indefinite leave to remain do. Some 800,000 people are likely to claim indefinite leave to remain in the course of this Parliament. We do not have enough data from the DWP, so I urge the Government to have more transparency about the information that is received. However, on the basis of the information we have, we believe that some hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are claiming PIP and UC health are foreign nationals—that does not include EU citizens, who have rights under the withdrawal agreement. Welfare is simply not part of the contract that we make with people who come to this country. They are given visas on the basis that they will support themselves and our amendment would make that principle real.
Every pound spent on benefits for someone who could be supported into work is a pound less for someone else who cannot or can never work and who deserves all our sympathy and support. We cannot wait another year for this dithering, hamstrung Government to come forward with the changes we need. Our amendments offer a path to a better system that is fair for claimants and fair for taxpayers, and I commend them to the Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. If someone can work, they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was absolutely right to remind the House that that principle underpinned the creation of the welfare state by the post-war Labour Government. If someone needs help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who cannot work must be able to live with dignity. Those are the principles underpinning what we are doing.
The UK, uniquely in the G7, has a lower rate of employment today than we had before the pandemic. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Hendon were right to point out that that is uniquely a UK problem. In large measure, it is because of the traps in the universal credit system that this Bill addresses. The system needs to be fixed and it is urgent to get on and do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) was right to point out to the House that delay is not the answer. The delay being called for by the Conservatives is not the right way forward. Abandoning people, in the way the system has for years, has been catastrophic. There are 2.8 million people out of work on health and disability benefits, and hundreds of thousands want to be back in work and say they could be, if only they had the support to get back into a job. We are determined to provide them with that support.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
When the Bill started its life, the Government were advocating for cuts for PIP and UC health claimants now and in future. They conceded that now was not right and that it was only for future claimants. Then they conceded that it should not be PIP claimants in future, leaving only UC health claimants. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anxiety and confusion that this has caused people in the disabled community? Would it not be better to pause, wait for the review and do it properly?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do.
It is particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers, with nearly 1 million not in employment, education or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) was absolutely right to highlight that point. We need to get on and tackle the disability employment gap.
The Bill addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit. It protects those we do not ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment, and the poverty impact assessment, which has now been published, makes it clear that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. We are rebalancing support here.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.
A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should
“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”
in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway. I will give away a little bit later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and I have discussed, I do not agree that the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year, and with no four-point threshold, I do not think it is in anybody’s interest to rush it. I accept her proposal, in subsection (4) of her new clause, for a group to co-produce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it. I will chair the group, and we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings, with around a dozen members and with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics.
My hon. Friend has made helpful suggestions for who some members of the group might be. We will want disabled parliamentary representation to be involved in the process as well, and arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her that the majority of the group’s members need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part.
Dr Tidball
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many aspects of new clause 11 and for his assurances from the Dispatch Box. I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote if he can offer further assurances that there will be sufficient links between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on PIP to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard.
Sir Stephen Timms
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows.
Steve Darling
I really welcome the fact that disabled groups are going to be meaningfully engaged, according to the Minister’s proposal, and I look forward to seeing the full details of that, but how will carers’ groups be engaged as well? I would welcome some assurance on that.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raised that point very reasonably in the debate, and it is certainly something we need to consider as well.
Ms Creasy
I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way for a moment or two.
On Parliament’s handling of the review outcome, which is also raised in new clause 11, I would envisage a ministerial oral statement. I can commit on behalf of the Government that there will then be a general debate on it, in Government time, and that the legislation to implement the review outcome will not be brought forward until that has happened.
Sir Stephen Timms
Not just at the moment.
Clause 1 introduces the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. The previous Government ran universal credit down. They did not uprate it; they froze it, forcing mass dependence on food banks. The increase is accompanied by a reduction, as we debated, in the health top-up for most new claimants, as set out in clause 2.
Clause 3 set out that the health top-up would be frozen until 2029-30 for existing claimants and for those with the most severe lifelong conditions or those near the end of life. The Government amendment means that, for existing claimants, the standard allowance plus the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation up to 2029-30. That also applies to people with severe lifelong conditions who we do not ever expect to work and those near the end of life. Clause 4 and the amendment to it mirror the universal credit changes in employment and support allowance.
The Bill will protect existing claimants in a powerful way, including those with fluctuating health conditions, but it will move decisively to a more proactive, pro-work system. That is what we need, and the protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway.
The protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment and who are on the LCWRA rate is that if they go into work, they are likely—depending, of course, on their income—to stay on universal credit, so that protection will continue while they are in work. If their income rises to the level where they are lifted off universal credit, for six months they will retain that protection, and if they go back, they will return to their original rate, so there is very strong protection there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not give way.
Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
Vicky Foxcroft
Will the Minister ensure that the universal credit health element forms part of the co-produced Timms review when reviewing the assessment process, as the UC health element will be assessed under the new PIP assessment? Furthermore, can we ensure that all disability benefits and support are in scope, so that we can truly get an assessment process fit for the future?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that the Green Paper set out our proposal that the PIP assessment will in future also be the gateway to the universal credit health top-up, giving it indeed a broader role. Our aim is specifically a co-produced benefit assessment. If that works well, there may well be a strong case to apply the same approach, maybe even using the same or a similar group to other challenges, and perhaps including other aspects of the health and disability benefits system, but that would need to follow successful completion of the task immediately in hand.
Let me finally make an important point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and others. The severe conditions criteria in the Bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present. That is in guidance. It is being moved in this Bill into legislation. It does take account of Parkinson’s and MS because people need to meet these descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable timeframe, so I can give a firm assurance to those concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those with fluctuating conditions. The word “constantly” here refers, as I said in my earlier intervention, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms.
This Bill begins to repair a broken system that holds people back, by removing work disincentives from universal credit. We will provide record employment support for disabled people, for people with health impairments—
Division 258
Ayes: 35
Labour: 10
Scottish National Party: 9
Independent: 8
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Noes: 469
Labour: 356
Conservative: 95
Independent: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Reform UK: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Division 265
Ayes: 336
Labour: 333
Independent: 3
Noes: 242
Conservative: 91
Liberal Democrat: 65
Labour: 49
Independent: 11
Scottish National Party: 9
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Alliance: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Business of the House (14 July)
Petitions
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to convey the anger of the Du Cane Road Residents Association, which covers a cluster of different blocks including the very handsome Pankhurst House, which was in the Ideal Home exhibition in 1928. It was built for working women but has seen better days, and this is all because of Clarion Housing. The petition highlights repairs issues, such as a broken window that has been in that state for years, the ever-increasing and opaque service charges that nobody is really clear about, and the allocations policy. Once it was working women living there, but it now seems to be undesirables of both genders. I am all for equality, but it seems to have turned into a bit of a dumping ground.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton,
Declares that numerous constituents residing in homes which are managed by the housing association Clarion including Pankhurst House and neighbouring blocks are seriously concerned with the poor level of service and delayed responses they have been provided regarding repairs, for example, a broken window for years on end; further declares that residents are unsatisfied with transparency around how service charges are calculated; further declares that residents are displeased with the allocations policy by which residents are assigned which they fear is leading to it becoming a “dumping ground” for undesirables when the original nucleus of the estate was women’s keyworker accommodation.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Council to compel Clarion to ensure that; concerns are listened to and actioned in a timely manner, that more transparency is enacted with service charges, to commit to working with the council for improvements in the system of allocating residents so that existing tenants have a say in who their neighbours are, to provide a better balance of tenant and reverse the current system which is cumulative and having a detrimental effect on the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003084]
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Omagh bombing inquiry, which is seeking access to unreported oral evidence given to my predecessors on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2009. The petition states:
The petition of the Solicitor to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, Tom Suter
Declares that the independent statutory inquiry into the Omagh Bombing includes within its scope “The allegation made by Norman Baxter (former Senior Investigating Officer in the investigation into the Omagh Bombing) in the course of his evidence to the Northern Ireland Select Committee on 11 November 2009, that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira (20 February 1998), Portadown (9 May 1998), Banbridge (1 August 1998) and Lisburn (30 April 1998) did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists prior to the Omagh Bombing”; and further that evidence was taken from Mr Baxter in private session which was not reported to the House, and that the inquiry has taken advice on the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and will be mindful of the privileges of the House.
The petitioner therefore requests that the House makes arrangements to supply the transcript of unreported oral evidence taken from Mr Norman Baxter by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in private session on 11 November 2009 to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.
And the petitioner remains, etc.
[P003091]
Birmingham Pub Bombings
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Fifty-one years ago, on 21 November 1974, two bombs exploded in the heart of Birmingham, at the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town. Twenty-one lives were lost and 220 people were injured. Families were destroyed, futures were stolen, and scars were left that never healed.
In those two pubs, the Provisional IRA murdered 21 souls. James Caddick, John Jones, Stanley Bodman, John Rowlands, Charles Grey, Jimmy Craig, Trevor Thrupp, Michael Beasley, Thomas Chaytor, Marilyn Nash, Stephen Whalley, Eugene Reilly, Desmond Reilly, Maureen Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Anne Hayes, Maxine Hambleton, Lynn Bennett, Jane Davis, Paul Anthony Davies and Neil “Tommy” Marsh all lost their life. They were sons, daughters, parents, brothers, sisters—innocent people murdered in cold blood in Britain’s deadliest act of terrorism before 7/7. Today, it is still the largest, worst, unsolved mass murder in our nation’s history. To this day, not one person—not one—has been brought to justice for this atrocity. That is why I rise today to call for a statutory, judge-led public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005.
We all know what happened that night. We know that the bombs were planted by members of the Provisional IRA. We know that a warning was phoned in, and we know that it came too late—that it was chaotic, inadequate and fatal. We know that the Birmingham Six, members of the Irish community in Birmingham, were arrested, tortured and convicted of a crime they did not commit. They spent 16 years in prison before the Court of Appeal quashed their convictions in 1991. The relatives of the victims were left to grieve in silence, and were lied to by the police and by politicians alike. For decades they were shut out of justice, ignored, patronised and disbelieved. In 2019, a jury at the resumed inquest concluded that the 21 victims were unlawfully murdered and that the IRA was responsible, yet the jury was not allowed to consider who precisely carried out the bombing. The question of who bombed Birmingham, who murdered the 21, and who committed the largest unresolved murder on these islands, was ruled out of scope, so today the truth remains buried.
This is a wound that has never really healed. Since 2012, the families of those who died have fought with extraordinary courage and dignity in the search for truth and in the quest for justice. They have knocked on every door, they have sat with Ministers, they have won legal battles, they have crowdfunded representation, and they have taken their case to Westminster, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast. They have formed the group Justice for the 21, led by Julie and Brian Hambleton, whose sister was killed that night. Together they have done what so many others have failed to do: they have had the courage and the will to keep the flame of truth alive.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I commend the right hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the House. He mentions Julie Hambleton. I have met Julie many times over the years. I salute her courage and tenacity, and that of her fellow campaigners. I hope we can reach the point that they want to reach. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in the House. He made an exception for the Finucane family and created a hierarchy of victims. Surely the largest, most devastating terrorist act in our nation’s history is deserving of equal treatment, and a public inquiry should be given. Of course, there is one organisation that knows who carried out the bombing—the IRA. But though it demands transparency of others, it holds to itself its wicked secrets.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for that intervention, and for his support for my call. He knows as well as I do that time after time, at every turn, the families were met with barriers, bureaucracy and broken promises. They were told that they could not get legal aid. They were told that their case was not part of the reconciliation, or the legacy of the troubles. They were told to wait until West Midlands police pursued leads that led precisely nowhere. They were told again and again to be quiet, but they would not be quiet and will not be quiet. This House should not sit quiet while their search for justice is unfinished.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate; he is absolutely right to do so. I have met Julie Hambleton, and I support her campaign. I have spoken to her a number of times, both in Belfast and over here. Justice is needed for the 21 innocents who were murdered. I would like to see that. As a Northern Ireland MP, the troubles are never too far from my mind. The legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—never sat well with me because of the likes of the Kingsmill atrocity, and the need for the inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for, and which, I have to say, I fully support. Does he not agree that these people have had no closure or justice whatever, and that they deserve justice—the very same justice, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, given to the Finucane family?
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing that point to the Floor of the House, and for backing my call. This campaign is not about vengeance. It is about truth and justice. It is about the right to truth and accountability. Our system of law and order, and our democracy, should work for all, not just the powerful. We have to ask in this House why, after all this time—after 51 years—there has not been a public inquiry. Let us be clear: this cannot be a desktop review. This cannot merely be looked into by an independent panel. It must be a judge-led statutory public inquiry, with the full power to summon evidence, compel witnesses and hold institutions to account. Why? Because these grieving families have been failed time and again, and after 51 years, it is enough.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House, and for the powerful and creditable case he is making. Does he share the concern that after 51 years, memories are fading? Documentary evidence, some of which may not be secured in the Department or the National Archives, is at risk of destruction, and the chance of bringing those still living who bear responsibility for this atrocity to some measure of accountability is fading. We may not be out of time, but time is running out. Does he agree that action is needed now?
Liam Byrne
Yes, and that is why I am grateful to have been given time to make this call on the Floor of the House tonight.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Does he agree that for my constituents Julie and Paul—the relatives of two victims—who have waited for over 50 years to get justice, enough is enough? The families are still grieving. We must secure an independent public inquiry that includes the effective participation of the relatives as a matter of urgency, so that the families can get closure.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is exactly right. She speaks with such passion and eloquence about this issue. She knows as well as I do how deeply the families feel their pain.
Since the exoneration of the Birmingham Six—the men who were tortured, framed and imprisoned—no one has been held to account for that failure. Since 1991, no new suspects have been brought to trial. Since 2019, even though witnesses have admitted that they knew who was responsible, no one has been compelled to testify, despite the fact that men like Michael Christopher Hayes, a former member of the Provisional IRA, confessed in a 2017 BBC interview that he accepted “collective responsibility” for what he called a terrible tragedy, and despite Witness O and Chris Mullin indicating in their evidence to the inquest that they had knowledge of those responsible for the murders. While the coroner accepted assurances from the Government Legal Department that relevant documents had been disclosed, widespread doubts remain about whether information held in the Home Office, Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence was, in fact, made available.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. More than half a century has passed, and it seems that consecutive Governments have not provided closure, not just for the victims and their families, but for those who were falsely convicted and their families. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a lack of political will, as opposed to anything else, that is preventing us from having a public inquiry?
Liam Byrne
The thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I will come on to some reflections on that in just a moment.
We know that there are documents that were not provided to the inquest. Key individuals involved have died, but there are allegations that at least two of those responsible are still alive and living free, and that their names can be found in books in the House of Commons Library. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, as the years pass, memories fade and witnesses die, and the trail of truth grows cold. That is why it is time to act now.
Let us look at the facts. This is the largest unsolved mass murder in British history. No statutory inquiry has ever been launched into what happened. No one from the state has ever been held accountable for the failings of the investigation, the imprisonment of the innocent or the denial of justice to the families. By contrast, at the urging of this House, we have rightly ensured for victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell, Windrush and the Post Office scandal that we got to the bottom of what happened, and what caused the pain for so many victims. Why not Birmingham? Why are the people of Birmingham not given the justice that they deserve? It is time we sent the message from this House that there can be no more excuses.
A public inquiry is not just a legal tool, but a national act of conscience. It is how democracy apologises with honesty. It is how we tell the victims and their families that they matter, that their loss matters, and that their loved ones will not be forgotten. Crucially, it is how we learn. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past, the risk is that we repeat them.
We say often in this House that justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 51 years since that terrible night: 51 years of injustice; 51 years of doors closed and backs turned. I say that is long enough.
I want to be very clear with the House tonight about what we are seeking. We are seeking a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005. We are seeking a judge-led process, with full legal powers to compel witnesses and evidence. We are seeking an independent inquiry that is resourced to ensure the effective participation of the families, and that asks openly, without constraint, fear or favour: who bombed Birmingham? We are seeking an inquiry that examines the role of the police, the criminal justice system and the state, both then and since.
We have to be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this crime is not covered by the legislation and the agreements that secured peace in Northern Ireland, and that means something important. It means that the Home Secretary has the power right now to order this inquiry. There is no legal obstacle; the only question is whether there is the political will.
In April 2024, eight Birmingham MPs wrote to the Home Secretary to demand this inquiry. In November 2024, on the 50th anniversary, Justice for the 21 renewed its call, and that call was backed by a cross-party group of MPs, mayors, lawyers and campaigners. I wrote again to the Home Secretary in spring this year. I have not yet had an answer about a decision on whether an inquiry will be launched, which is why I have asked for this debate tonight. I am asking not for special treatment, but for equal treatment—for Birmingham to be given the justice that has been offered to the victims of so many scandals, where we have set up inquiries to get to the bottom of the truth.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. As others have said, an inquiry is absolutely crucial. Last November, I added my name to the calls for an inquiry for the families, for the victims and also for the city. This has been a cloud that has covered Birmingham for 51 years. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has reflected on what signal—what message—it sends that we are still waiting, and on what it is that those families can believe in if they cannot get the truth for which they have waited for so long.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about the past, this is about truth and this is about justice, but she is right to say that this is also about the future. This is about whether we, in this House, believe in justice without exception, justice without delay, and justice that does not stop at the doors of power. It is about whether the Government of this country will look the people of Birmingham in the eye and say, “We hear you. We see you. We believe you, and we will not rest until you get the answers that you deserve.”
Let us honour the memory of those 21 souls who never came home that night. Let us stand with their families and speak for a city that is still scarred by the silence. Let us at long last do what we should have done decades ago: let us hold a public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
May I start by commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for securing this debate? He is a very long-standing Member of this House, and I know that this is an issue of huge importance to him and his constituency, and to other Members from across the House who represent Birmingham. He has made his case passionately and powerfully, and the Home Secretary and I have heard what he has had to say, as well as the contributions of other Members, for which we are grateful.
I will respond to the points that have been made, but first, I want to say something about the bombings themselves. We must never lose sight of the fact that the bombs planted in the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town public houses in Birmingham on 21 November 1974 claimed 21 lives, injured more than 200 others, and caused untold devastation and pain. The harm caused by these brutal attacks went far beyond those killed and injured; it continues to affect parents, children, siblings and friends to this day. More than half a century has passed since the bombings, but the impact of these atrocities remains vivid and raw, not just in Birmingham, but in our national psyche.
Above all, we think of the victims and their families. I want to recognise the work of the Justice for the 21 campaign, which has continued to powerfully advocate for all those affected and to seek justice for their loved ones. I acknowledge their long-standing request for the establishment of a public inquiry into the bombings. The Home Secretary is considering advice and is determined to provide an answer to the families and victims as soon as possible. I am sure that Members will understand that we will ensure that the families are the first to hear the outcome.
My right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech that the Birmingham pub bombings are not covered by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. He is right that a public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings is not prevented by the Act. The Act does not prevent any public inquiry from taking place. However, I want to emphasise that the Birmingham pub bombings are absolutely in scope of the legacy Act and would be eligible for an investigation led by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Act created. I have full confidence that the commission and its team of dedicated staff hold sufficient powers, resources and expertise to support the families in the process of seeking answers to their questions. Indeed, the commission is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very glad that the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy Act. Can he reassure the House that in their proposals to repeal the legacy Act, the Government are not going to lose the opportunity of having the trade-off, as it were, between immunity from prosecution and truth recovery, which was always the basis of the legacy Act?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, will know that I am standing next to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will understand that the work of the previous Government, while no doubt well-intentioned, did not provide a solution that had the support of political parties in Northern Ireland—nor did it have the support of veterans and those who suffered the impact of terrorism. I can give him an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, working with colleagues right across Government, will do everything possible to ensure that we put in place a solution and a settlement that is able to attract wider support.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is kind of the Minister to give way one more time. I urge Ministers not to be blinded by what political parties in Northern Ireland say, because the truth of the matter is that they have to take certain positions—usually ones that favour their side and disfavour the other side—and the prospect of getting all those parties to agree on something like this is minute. That is why the legacy Act cut through all that, in the same way that Nelson Mandela came up with a similar solution that worked in South Africa.
Dan Jarvis
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that none of the political parties in Northern Ireland were able to support the previous arrangements. I know that he understands the complexity of these matters, and I hope that he will see that this Government are acting in good faith and attempting to put in place an arrangement that can attract the widespread support that is required.
As I was saying, the option for families to refer their case to the commission is available now. I encourage any victim, survivor or family member affected by the troubles to give consideration to the commission in their search for answers.
A number of investigations have been conducted over the 50 years since the bombings, including West Midlands police investigations between 2012 and 2014 and between 2019 and 2023, as well as coronial inquests that concluded in 2019. As is the case with so many incidents that occurred during the troubles, the prospect of criminal justice outcomes is increasingly unlikely. The families of the bereaved in Birmingham, like so many others, completely understandably continue to seek the information and accountability that they deserve.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North raised the desire of the families for the role of the police and the criminal justice system to be investigated as part of any public inquiry. As Members will be aware, the Independent Office for Police Conduct is a respected and well-tested forum for such matters. As a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I know that the troubles were a devastating time for the whole nation—such that 25 years on from the passing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the impact lives on.
Each tragedy has far-reaching and long-standing effects on victims, survivors and the communities around them. The work undertaken by all those who sought to end the troubles has helped prevent further such tragedies. It is important that we seek to remain united across the House in our condemnation of anyone who seeks to take us back to those times.
The pub bombings in Birmingham killed or injured innocent people who happened to be in a particular place when heinous acts were perpetrated. Today, and always, we mourn the dead and hold their loved ones in our thoughts. We think too of the survivors and all those who were affected.
I want to finish by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North for securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. Terrorist attacks have terrible and far-reaching consequences on individuals, communities and our society as a whole. We must stand united to combat terrorism, whether it is driven by political, religious or ideological causes. The Government and the people of this country are united in our condemnation of those who inflict violence on our streets.
The Birmingham pub bombings were a brutal moment in the history of that great city and of our country—a day when 21 lives were cruelly snatched away and hundreds more changed forever. We understand that the devastation caused by those horrific attacks continues for people to this day and, more than 50 years later, the fact that their quest for answers and justice goes on must be unbelievably distressing. As I have said, we recognise the frustration that causes, yet these are decisions that need to be taken incredibly carefully. The Government will respond to the request for a public inquiry as soon as possible.
I have the utmost sympathy for the bereaved families and for the survivors. Their experience for over 50 years has been deeply painful, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House continue to hold them in their thoughts and prayers.
Question put and agreed to.