Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Commons Chamber

Tuesday 1st July 2025

(began 3 months ago)

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

11:35

Presentation of Bills

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The Order. The clerk Order. The clerk will Order. The clerk will now Order. The clerk will now proceed to read the title of the private bills set out for today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Royal Albert Hall Bill Lords. Second Reading. Second Reading what day? Tuesday, 8 July.

11:36

Oral questions: Treasury

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tuesday, 8 July. Tuesday, 8 July. We now come to questions to Chancellor of the Exchequer.

11:36

Q1. Whether she plans to review the Barnett formula for Scotland. (904926)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number one. Thank you. There are currently no

11:36

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. There are currently no plans to review the operation of the Barnett Formula. The Barnett Formula

11:36

Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)

- -

has stood the test of time because it is simple, efficient and provides a clear and certain outcome. It is a clear part of the arrangements for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pooling and sharing risks and resources around and across the United Kingdom. Thank you. We know if the government today passes its disgraceful, discriminatory and some say a legal cuts to disability support, this will -- almost certainly lead to a reduction as a reduction -- as a result of the Barnett Formula. It is a deliberate choice Scottish Labour MPs will be choice Scottish Labour MPs will be making if they support these cuts. For which they must answer to their constituents.

Can the Chancellor all the Minister tell them this House the Minister tell them this House and indeed the nation, how many millions they will be voting to take out of the pockets of disabled and out of the pockets of disabled and venerable people in Scotland? Many of whom voted for Labour almost one

11:37

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year ago. Thank you. One thing I can tell the Scottish people and indeed the the Scottish people and indeed the House is that it is this Labour government who is given the largest real terms increase in spending to the Scottish Government since devolution began. Billions and billions of pounds of extra money going to the SNP in Scotland on devolved matters. It is for the SNP to be accountable for delivery of to be accountable for delivery of public services to people in Scotland.

Where they are failing on everything from the NHS to welfare and the economy.

11:37

Lloyd Hatton MP (South Dorset, Labour)

- -

Thank you. In the recent spending review, the Chancellor outlined plans for a multi-million pound investment for essential building works and an academy in Weymouth. We welcome this new investment in our town the local schools which will enable them to finally upgrade their support buildings. Looking ahead, will the Chancellor work with me to speedily deliver this new investment and ensure the Academy gets the richly deserved upgrade as soon as possible?

11:37

Q2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the data her Department holds on high net worth individuals. (904927)

I cannot see it being relevant to the question unfortunately. the question unfortunately. the question unfortunately. HMRC uses a range of data sources to monitor the wealthy population. International exchanges of information including common reporting standard and foreign account tax apply data develop account tax apply data develop deeper insight international financial players of some of the U.K.'s wealthiest taxpayers.

11:38

Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. The Minister will be no doubt aware of the reports of the so-called exodus of accounts. These often quote high-profile individuals were city spokespeople, there is rarely hard numbers behind these reports. So I wanted to ask the Treasury whether they could verify tax justice out of research that says just not .3% of billionaires have exited the UK and that is low and stable over the last decade? And whether they will publish their own figures?

11:38

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. We are considering fiscal measures of financial changes, the figures that match another those provided by the office of budget responsibility. The OBR have certified the non-dom reforms the government have implemented were raising £38.8 billion in total revenue and that figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime. When choosing to leave the UK.

11:39

Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)

- -

Public investment makes us all more prosperous but clearly that public investment needs to be paid for. Investment in Apple -- in our roads and rail and energy in as well. Could the Minister set out how we are funding public investment by taxing the very richest people in this country?

11:39

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

My honourable friend is absolutely correct. The changes were made to the non-dom reform regime are essential to raise billions of pounds and support the public finances and get our public services back on their feet. I contrasted Mr Speaker, with some of the proposals put out by the party opposite. Indeed Reform UK are a tax cut for foreign billionaires.

11:39

Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)

- -

Shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. In the Budget last year we were talking about the Chancellor turning away about the Chancellor turning away around £10 billion over the next couple of years from reform to the non-dom tax regime. The OBR I think non-dom tax regime. The OBR I think it is important to remember said in its fiscal outlook this figure was highly uncertain. High-level survey highly uncertain. High-level survey by Oxford economics found that two thirds of non-doms are considering leaving the country in the next couple of years as a direct result couple of years as a direct result of these policies.

That implies not only an increase of £10 million but a decrease of £8 billion. The Chancellor has created a fiscal Chancellor has created a fiscal black hole of £18 billion is just one policy alone. In this week of one policy alone. In this week of heroic U-turns from the Frontbench opposite, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm whether she will be axing this tax? And whether she

11:40

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be funding... I was not really sure if there is a policy suggestion in that comment a policy suggestion in that comment or not. The fiscal black hole we had to address when we won the General to address when we won the General Election was the £22 billion black hole after their mismanagement of the economy. As I said the Officer Budget responsibility have confirmed Budget responsibility have confirmed our reforms to the non-dom regime will raise £33.8 billion over the

11:41

Q3. What fiscal steps she plans to take to help reduce the number of disabled and sick people in poverty. (904928)

will raise £33.8 billion over the five year forecast. It is the OBR's figures which will trust.

11:41

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Thank you for stock number three please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The government is committed to ensuring there are committed to ensuring there are fewer sick and disabled people in poverty by helping them into work and getting them off NHS waiting lists. That is why the Spring lists. That is why the Spring Statement we announced the largest investment in employment support in at least a generation. The government has a ready taken action to tackle poverty, including with the fair repayment rate which lowers the cap on deductions and Universal Credit.

However we have increased the nationalism made by 6.6%. Beyond this we are investing to reduce poverty by expanding free school meals, investing in £1 million meals, investing in £1 million settlement for crisis support and we will be setting out our Child will be setting out our Child Poverty Strategy in the autumn. We have invested £29 million in reducing NHS waiting lists and since

11:42

Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )

- -

reducing NHS waiting lists and since taking office, there are 385,000 more people in work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Many disabled people are really struggling right now we are really struggling right now we know that three in 10 are living in poverty. As I can see in my poverty. As I can see in my constituency of New York. I was particularly taken aback by the Budget group report which highlighted three quarters of people that are going to lose their PIP that are going to lose their PIP Carer's Allowance are women. So how will she ensure when fiscal will she ensure when fiscal decisions are made we look particularly at the intersection a little between women, disabled

11:42

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

people and other protected characteristics? To ensure they are not pushed further into poverty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that question. She will know nobody who is currently receiving personal independence payments will see any independence payments will see any reduction in the support they get. reduction in the support they get. In terms of supporting our women into work, we recognise some of those into sexuality is that my those into sexuality is that my honour friend will -- into sexuality is that my honourable friend is that my honourable friend mentions. We have increased the national living wage by 6.6% and sadly it is still too often women sadly it is still too often women who are paid the often lowest wages.

Our Employment Rights Bill will offer more security and dignity in offer more security and dignity in work. We are rolling out more childcare, including new nurseries at primary schools. Today my right honourable friend, the Business and honourable friend, the Business and Trade Secretary will be making a statement announcing the launch into a review on parental leave, something that could be beneficial to all parents and all working

11:43

Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to all parents and all working parents. But particularly for mums. Does the Chancellor accept CAMHS

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Chancellor accept CAMHS save it is a major driver of save it is a major driver of poverty, not of people who are ill and waiting for treatment but people who are happily cured find they have collateral damage which means they are not able to work at full level throughout the rest of their life? Does she reckon radiotherapy plays a huge part in making sure people are cured and then able to be productive in society given the international average for people with CAMHS is -- with cancer is 33%.

As you look at the economic issues and investing in regular therapy?

11:44

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank the honourable gentleman for that question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- We invested in the spending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- We invested in the spending review £29 billion additional every year to day-to-day spending in the National Heath Service. As well as a National Heath Service. As well as a big record uplift in capital spending in the NHS there is more funny -- more money for the equipment to do that vital work including with cancer treatments as including with cancer treatments as the honourable gentleman mentioned. We have delivered in our first year in office, 4 million additional appointments in the NHS and reduce appointments in the NHS and reduce NHS waiting lists by 250,000.

That NHS waiting lists by 250,000. That is only possible because of the decisions we took in the budget last year, like increasing taxes on non-

11:45

David Baines MP (St Helens North, Labour)

- -

year, like increasing taxes on non- doms. It also the increase in National Insurance Contributions which has gone into funding our national health insurance -- our National Heath Service.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saint Helens is the most 26 deprived area and this poverty has an impact on health and sickness from pre-birth to old age. As a from pre-birth to old age. As a country we are spending more on crisis intervention and less on early intervention after 14 years of early intervention after 14 years of the Tories. Can the Chancellor please assure me this government

11:45

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please assure me this government will do all it can to publish and councils and health services to help people live longer healthier lives? I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that question. It is a really important point and something that our Prime Minister is absolutely committed to. Early intervention to committed to. Early intervention to stop the costs of crisis emerging later on. Later this week my right honourable friend, the Health Secretary will be publishing on the anniversary of the Labour creation of the health service, the 10-Year Health Plan. Which will fund us on things to ensure, young people in particular and those in poverty and some of the most deprived communities in our country are not let down.

And they have a healthy start to life and that is something across the whole of government we across the whole of government we are determined to achieve.

11:46

Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)

- -

Disastrous of the back of the result of an obsessive pursuit to stick to this contest Tory fiscal rules. 150,000 people can still be saved from poverty of all of the Scottish Labour MPs joined those to vote down this particular bill. It should not be of Scottish Labour MPs go through this to support this bill, they may as well not bother bill, they may as well not bother

11:46

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

The government changed the fiscal rules in the Budget last year and for the first time we pay for day- to-day spending through tax receipts and then there is an investment rule to allow us to invest in things that will draw the economy like energy will draw the economy like energy infrastructure, Defence spending, transport, digital spending. In the Budget and the Spring Statement this year, we unlocked £3 billion more to spend in the Parliament including the record settlement for the Scottish government and it is up to them to spend that money wisely and reduce waiting lists in Scotland as reduce waiting lists in Scotland as we have in England and Wales.

11:47

James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

- -

First it was the humiliating reversal of the winter fuel cuts reversal of the winter fuel cuts from the Chancellor and now welfare cuts which we rushed have been shredded, leaving unfunded spending to pay for. The Chancellor said in October that extending the threshold would hard-working people and take more money out of the payslips all that she stand by the commitment to end the freeze from 2028? Yes or no? end the freeze from 2028? Yes or no?

11:47

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Of course, when his government were on the side of the House they froze the 11 seats and took more money out of the pockets of working people and despite that they left a black hole of £22 billion in public finances so I will not take lessons from the party opposite, who have opposed everything that is needed to invest in public services and that is how we are in the mess that we are in, because of the damage that are in, because of the damage that With permission, I will answer this With permission, I will answer this question together with question 22.

The government recognises the The government recognises the critical contribution transport critical contribution transport makes to the growth mission and increased the budget by over £100 million at the Autumn Budget last million at the Autumn Budget last year and a further £30 million in the Spring Statement. Taken together, it represents a big together, it represents a big increase in capital investment and increase in capital investment and the Transport budget, excluding HS2, will increase by real terms in the period, improving connectivity in towns, cities and villages, towns, cities and villages, increasing transport reliability.

For devolved areas, it is up to the Scottish and Welsh governments to allocate transport funding and be accountable for those decisions. accountable for those decisions.

11:49

Ruth Jones MP (Newport West and Islwyn, Labour)

- -

I welcome the announcement that the railway projects in Wales including five new stations east of Cardiff will receive extra funding in the next decade. Could the Chancellor provide more detail as to how the money will be specifically allocated and when it will begin.

11:49

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

It was a pleasure to be in Cardiff just after the Spending Review to look at the difference the investment that this Labour government is putting into Wales. The strategy recognises the long- term infrastructure needs of Wales and how they have been neglected for too long by the Tories and we have delivered at least £445 million for rail enhancements, providing funding to deliver the stations from the Burns review including Newport West and Summerton. Future investment plans will be made in close consultation with the Welsh consultation with the Welsh government and engagement with the Wales Rail Board.

11:50

Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)

- -

A commitment of £15.6 billion regional transport through the Spending Review should be good news for manufacturing but there is an ongoing consultation in Falkirk with another major employer at risk after the oil refinery. The SNP have famously failed to invest in Scotland. Will be Chancellor act to guarantee investment is of maximum benefit to Scottish vehicle manufacturers? manufacturers?

11:51

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for the question. It is important that as the government puts more money into infrastructure, including Transport, it benefits jobs in Britain. It is not right the Scottish government spent more on buses made in China than those made in Scotland. There is nothing stopping the SNP from actually investing in jobs and growth in Scotland. Scotland.

11:51

Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)

- -

MPs and councils of all parties across east and north Yorkshire are united in wanting to increase productivity in the area, have greener options, and optimise the economic output. Will be Chancellor work on a cross-party basis to look at reopening the direct rail line so the great University cities of the great University cities of Oxford and Hull are regulated once again?

11:52

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I welcome his support of the investment the Labour government are making in transport and infrastructure after 14 years of neglect by his own party. We have increased spending on transport by 1.9% per year in real terms, and if the year of the Spending Review, benefiting all parts of the country including Yorkshire both he and I have the honour and privilege of being members of Parliament.

11:52

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

The Prime Minister, the business secretary at the Chancellor had the joy of coming to my constituency by road last week and it would have come by the A5 and the last speaker spoke about that but the spending review saw the money drop as so will she commit to the same amount as the last government? last government?

11:53

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

The irony is, the last government made the commitments but did not put money into delivering them and that it is difference this government is making with fully funded plans to update transport and the DfT have the settlement and a look at a number of projects. The mess left by the party opposite is something we have had to sort out and the Conservative Party have not backed any measures we have taken to bring in more revenue. As we have seen, they are keen on spending money and that is why we were left with a black hole of £22 billion when we black hole of £22 billion when we came into office last year.

11:53

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

I would like to group this with questions 11, 23, 24. Kickstarting economic growth in every region if you admission of the government and as part of the new infrastructure strategy, we have allocated £725 billion to rebuilding and building new bridges, roads across the country and also into local government and transport benefiting places like Gloucestershire and Wales. Key rail routes will benefit from £445 million of investment.

11:54

Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Small to medium sized businesses are the backbone of the local economy in Eastleigh, creating jobs and driving innovation but local businesses including a precision manufacturing firm have told me that due to increased costs as a result of the changed National Insurance contributions have meant they have no choice but to pass customers on, making manufacturing in the UK less competitive globally. What concrete steps the government take to help businesses in Eastleigh?

11:54

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

50% of small businesses won't be affected by the employer National Insurance increase, as she will know. We will set out a small business strategy in the government plan to support businesses across the UK later this year.

11:55

Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)

- -

I am delighted with the investment in Welsh rail of bronze and £45 million in the Spending Review. It shows the power of two labour governments working together and corrects years of underfunding from the Tories opposite. This is extremely welcome engrossed abilities and have built businesses and will be a driver of economic growth, which is a mission of the government. As you claim steps she is taking in other departments to ensure rural economies and market towns and small businesses across my area can be helped to thrive and contribute to the growth mission?

11:55

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

I welcome what she says and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome what she says and the government has £2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming and nature recovery and we are investing £1.5 billion to improve digital connectivity, which will be

11:55

Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)

- -

connectivity, which will be important to small businesses and others, but you mentioned. We will set out small business strategy later this year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question 20. North Gloucestershire is ready to jumpstart growth but there is a jumpstart growth but there is a number of agencies ready to drive the UK towards better objectives including broadening technologies

11:56

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

and a project which includes 100 ha of area for this. Will the Minister join me in Gloucestershire to demonstrate this expertise and potential for growth?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Defence companies are an incredibly important part of the incredibly important part of the economy and bare increasing Defence spending by up to 2.6% in this

11:56

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

spending by up to 2.6% in this Parliament and it has only reached these levels ever before under a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour government. The industrial strategy was right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The industrial strategy was right to highlight the potential for the national cyber innovation centre in my constituency and to deliver that, we need to make sure Junction 10 of we need to make sure Junction 10 of the M5 is done to enable traffic to the M5 is done to enable traffic to get around development. This is of national importance. The strategic sizing accelerator has been mentioned by the government and I

11:57

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wonder if you will advise me on how we can help access that fund in Gloucestershire? I will make sure he gets a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will make sure he gets a meeting with the relevant Transport meeting with the relevant Transport Minister but I copious as excited as I am about the £1 billion being invested in the state-of-the-art Golden Valley investment which will create jobs and 3700 new homes and is close to the GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham and I am sure that he will become that. will become that.

11:57

Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)

- -

Would the Minister agree that the proposals are in place-based analysis, but actually there are places like Maine who are left behind and it will start to get the infrastructure investment that they need, would be Minister comment on that? -- Places like mine.

11:58

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

Alongside the Spending Review, we recognise the importance of strategic investment in every part of the country and we recognise the potential in places she mentioned and she is a great champion for constituency. constituency.

11:58

Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )

- -

After years of underfunded and undelivered promises of levelling up from the party opposite, this is a great deal of finally getting the fair share of money that the deserved. Can the Minister expand on how the place-based approach will help places like mine with advanced manufacturing? manufacturing?

11:59

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

As you know, we launched the transport funding of £15.6 billion for regions and that affected his own constituency and we must recognise the potential of places like those he represents and we will unlock that digital growth across the North and other parts of the country.

11:59

Q6. What steps she is taking to help increase funding for the clean energy sector. (904932)

We are a long way from Eastleigh. Other people who should come on the order paper are being left behind.

11:59

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

The Spending Review has significant investment into clean energy to improve the economy and this includes the money for Great British Energy, Great British Energy Nuclear, and £40.2 billion for another department.

11:59

Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)

- -

My constituents are no doubt sweltering in the heat today but they are worried that, come winter, they will again face eye watering energy bills to heat their homes. The previous comment left us with the luckiest homes in Europe. -- leakiest. They scrapped plans for insulation. What work is the government doing to support clean energy and upgrade homes to take the clean, cheap energy and bring down clean, cheap energy and bring down energy bills in my constituency?

12:00

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

She is an excellent advocate for her constituents in Ealing Southall I'm sure they will benefit from the warm homes plant which will see £30 warm homes plant which will see £30 billion allocated to schemes alongside energy efficiency measures and low-carbon technologies which will help with energy bills and tackle fuel poverty. tackle fuel poverty.

12:00

Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)

- -

To speak the target falls to zero from what was negotiated by the government and that represents the size of the ethanol market which will have a huge impact for the rural economy, UK jobs, the NHS, with the government effectively moving the benefits of ethanol production and the benefits offshore to the US. What discussions are the Chancellor and her team having with the green energy sector where there the green energy sector where there

12:01

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Our colleagues in the Department of business and trade are having conversations with those businesses and industries and those who may be affected. I welcome that he said we welcome the trade deal with the US, and economically also important for our prosperity and will see as being the only country to avoid similar tariffs which are affecting countries all across the world.

12:01

Gareth Davies MP (Grantham and Bourne, Conservative)

- -

Mr Speaker, it is becoming clear one year in the public still do not know what Labour is all about. The same could be said for the National Wealth Fund. Not only has it invested less equity and clean energy than the costly £7 billion rebrand but it has also not rightly subject to a Treasury Select Comittee inquiry at which expert witnesses could not name a single thing it is doing different lie. The CEO of the British Business Bank now says the government did not understand what it was setting up.

So can the Minister tell us why has the National Wealth Fund invested less in clean energy before the costly rebrand and why did the U- turn on incorporating the British Business Bank?

12:02

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Mr Speaker, the shadow Minister forgets to mention the fact we have had £30 billion investment in green energy since the general election. I am sure he will have consulted the spending review documents very closely. I know he is a diligent shadow Minister in that regard. You will have seen the investment we are putting into Sizewell C, Small Modular Reactors, infusion, R&D, the carbon capture and storage, all of this the Warm Homes Plan, to make sure we ensure our security and bring down bills for good.

12:03

Q7. Whether she plans to provide additional Barnett consequential funding to the Northern Ireland Executive for the Winter Fuel Payment. (904933)

Question seven, Lucky seven Mr Speaker.

12:03

Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

The honourable member is always lucky. I can reassure him that will be an increase in the Northern Ireland Executive funding through the forecasting process. This will be confirmed at the autumn Budget in the usual way but more importantly to pensioners in Northern Ireland he will be aware in June, the communities Minister confirmed Alternative Fuel Payment's will be available in Northern Ireland on the available in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in England and Wales.

12:03

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Thank you. Can I thank the Minister very much that positive answer. What assessment has been made on the impact of the Winter Fuel Payment in line with inflation? Given the increase in the Cost of Living Committee does the Minister agree the current Winter Fuel Payments are up to the standard in terms of how far they will go to support those in Ireland? Thank you so much.

12:03

Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

I thank the honourable member for his question. Our priority at the moment is to extend eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payments. As he and I have discussed a number of occasions but that sits within a wider set of support. He will have seen the extension to the warm home discount announced in recent days and the extension of the Household Support Fund. As he is well aware, Support Fund. As he is well aware, Social Security is a policy in Northern Ireland.

12:04

Chris Kane MP (Stirling and Strathallan, Labour)

- -

Does the Minister agree it is only because of the Barnett Formula and a Labour government Scotland including communities instilling now has a record funding of £50 billion this year? It is deeply concerning the SNP government in Scotland have no plan to invest its funding properly in Scotland NHS, Scotland schools, Scotland's local services?

12:04

Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

As so often my honourable friend said it clearly. We have seen record investment in the Scottish government budget but we also see waiting lists not falling in Scotland. Just as they are in England and in Wales.

12:05

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Question number eight. recognise the social and cultural value of horseracing which is why on course betting is exempt from duty and horseracing is the only sport receive a government mandated levy. We are consulting on measures to subdivide gabbling duty and increase compliance. No decision will be made for the Budget and we are working for the Budget and we are working with the horse racing sector to identify unintended consequences and mitigations.

12:05

Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )

- -

Thank you. I refer members to my Register of Interests. In Doncaster we are incredibly proud of our historic racecourse which is home to the iconic safe ledger festival. As someone who has attended the racecourse for a number of events are my life I can see it as part of our local community and brings thousands of jobs. Can the Minister confirm he will continue with dialogue with the horseracing industry? Noting it brings 85,000 jobs to the country nationally and is the second largest spectator sport in the country? Identifying actually this is very very different from online casinos and games of chance.

chance.

12:06

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Mr Speaker, it is excellent to hear my honourable friend speaking so passionately about Doncaster racecourse. And the wider sector. I can reassure here we will absolutely continue close dialogue with the horseracing industry on these proposals. I and my officials are working closely with horse racing sector to identify any unintended consequences and possible mitigations and we intend to continue those conversations with the industry and of course we welcome her further engagement. welcome her further engagement.

12:06

Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)

- -

How does the government assess the implementation of the flat rate in terms of the proving fairness on simplification and reducing administrative costs and reducing compliance? compliance?

12:06

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Sorry, I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. One of the principles behind the reforms we are looking to the gambling duty is to tackle issues of compliance by simpler buying the system. The consultation is open at the moment and I would encourage him and anyone else who is interested in cultivating towards that to make their views known. their views known.

12:07

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

-- Contributing towards that to make their views known. recently met with the trustees of the British coal staff superannuation scheme to skill set their proposals and I am monitoring the developers closely. the developers closely.

12:07

Nick Smith MP (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, Labour)

- -

Can I thank the chief Secretary for his answer. Last year I attended the anniversary of the six Bells mining disaster. I met a man whose brother Keith was killed in the tragedy. He is 90 now. We talked about when he and his buddies powered our country and remembers the coal staff pension scheme. Will the chief Secretary please be mindful of those who risk their lives for us but who are still old -- old pension fair play?

12:08

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Can I thank my honourable friend for his question. And extend also the thoughts of the House to the constituents and communities he represents. My honourable friend will know I have all is kept the service and sacrifices of the mining communities in my mind both in opposition in campaigning for changes to the miners pension scheme with this government implemented at the last Budget and now proposals from the BC tripler scheme and I from the BC tripler scheme and I will be looking at what we can do more in the autumn.

12:08

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Number 11.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The government protected the smallest businesses from changes to national insurance by increasing the Employment by increasing the Employment Allowance from £5000 to N£10,500. That means this year 865,000 That means this year 865,000 employers will pay no National Insurance contributions at all. More than half of employers will either

12:09

Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

- -

than half of employers will either gain or see no change to the National Insurance contributions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Given the recent tree of U-turns this government has demonstrated they are keen to change demonstrated they are keen to change their minds as well as create more their minds as well as create more black holes. Can she also do the right thing and use the increase in National Insurance Contributions to provide businesses with a much-

12:09

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provide businesses with a much- needed boost in this sluggish economy that she has created? I think it is a bit rich from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is a bit rich from the party opposite to mention black holes after the one they left for us holes after the one they left for us to clear up. The honourable gentleman would have seen the Lloyds business barometer which has easily been published. It shows business confidence is now at a nine-year high, led by increases in confidence in retail and in manufacturing. They referenced in that report the impact the spending review had had on businesses.

The recognition this businesses. The recognition this government is backing Britain and backing British businesses.

12:10

Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)

- -

Thank you. The Chancellor is quite right to mention the business confidence and it is at a nine-year high. Doesn't it go to show that not only was the, the announcements in the spending review they were right for business but her emphasis on stability and certainty in the economy is exactly what is needed? It is moreover in sharp contrast to the chaos and constant changes of the previous government and the complete disaster in economic policy complete disaster in economic policy we saw from the government opposite?

12:10

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for that question. The stability this government has returned to the economy has meant the Bank of England has been able to cut interest rates by four times in the last year. Taking hundreds of pounds of people's mortgages -- of people's mortgages which had such a big impact under the last government. The recent increase in business confidence also includes the Industrial Strategy pub occasion, the spending review, the three trade deals. All of which are boosting business confidence and to have helped create 385,000 new jobs in Britain since the last general election.

12:11

Richard Fuller MP (North Bedfordshire, Conservative)

- -

Mr Speaker, Labour's jobs tax has really clobbered British businesses. The Office for National Statistics says the number of available jobs is collapsing. The Institute of Directors, perhaps the Chancellor hasn't updated herself and her British businesses think in confidence. They said today British confidence has plummeted. The Bank of England's warning of significant declines in wage growth. The British chamber of Commerce says taxes on businesses cannot be increased. For now the Chancellor has bundled welfare changes, investigating confidence in the Prime Minister and blowing an even bigger hole in the public finances.

Meaning she will raise taxes yet again this autumn. So will the Chancellor avoid creating the same damaging uncertainty she did last summer by ruling out from the Dispatch Box today any further tax increases on British businesses?

12:12

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I am not going to take lessons from the party opposite to increased taxes 25 times and when they increase taxes it was already always working people and ordinary people who paid the price. In our Budget last year we protected the payslips of ordinary working people. I not increasing their income taxes, their national insurance or their VAT. We did not go ahead with the planned increase in pure duty deaf fuel to the party opposite had planned. Instead of talking down the British economy, why does the party opposite not back the plans that are backed by British businesses to grow our economy and make working people in our country better.

12:13

Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. Non-profit businesses and charities have been hit really hard by the jobs tax. Last week my local Meals on Wheels service told me the businesses like theirs around the country are having to make redundancies and put up prices for vulnerable people. In the context of today's welfare reforms the government is pursuing, can the Chancellor confirm whether the Treasury will conduct any assessment of the increased cost of essential and charitable services that are relied upon by disabled people and their carers? At a time when there welfare support can be cut.

12:13

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

As the honourable lady knows, the changes we have made to the welfare bill will mean nobody who is currently receiving personal independence payments will have a cut. So the premise of her question cut. So the premise of her question I do not think is quite -- correct. In the welfare bill today will also be voting for the biggest increase in the universal credit standard allowance. In a generation. We will be voting today to protect those with the most severe conditions from having to be reassessed.

For their conditions. Something that is degrading. We have got rid of the Tories work capability assessment changes which the Court said were illegal. We are putting £1 billion back into work support. At the same time we are investing £29 billion in the NHS, only possible because of the national insurance increase rise on business which the liberal Democrats opposed and yet that is how we are funding our NHS.

12:14

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

Question number 12 please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The government has committed £2.7 million per year to committed £2.7 million per year to support sustainable farming in support sustainable farming in nature recover support for the rural economy and we have invested 1.9 million over four years into digital

12:14

Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

connectivity as well as the 2.3 billion of local government transport funding for smaller cities towns and rural areas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whilst I welcome the government rural growth plans, I am concerned about the persistent poverty faced in many rural areas. The additional in many rural areas. The additional cost of living amenities known as the rural premium exacerbates hardship. What specific steps with hardship. What specific steps with the Chancellor take to support those the Chancellor take to support those in the poverty or poverty in rural areas and will the Treasury commit to look at multiple areas of deprivation to more accurately

12:15

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

deprivation to more accurately reflect privation in coastal communities such as West Somerset and mid Devon?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The MHCLG will be coming forward for further details of funding for

12:15

Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )

- -

for further details of funding for the 350 most deprived communities across the country including rural areas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is one of the most deprived regions of northern Europe, we benefited from objective and structural SPF funding. Can the structural SPF funding. Can the Minister confirm under this government Cornwall will not lose out on funding for economic growth

12:16

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out on funding for economic growth than the investment our communities deserve. We are supporting growth across the country and we will be

12:16

Q13. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy on economic growth. (904940)

the country and we will be publishing further details in the publishing further details in the

12:16

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

The 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy is a key part of the government growth mission, committing to a minimum of investment over the next four years for homes, schools, hospitals that for homes, schools, hospitals that are affordable and every part of the country.

12:16

Jessica Toale MP (Bournemouth West, Labour)

- -

I was pleased to see the creative digital industries and financial services and clergy were all included in the industrial strategy and these have huge potential in my constituency. The focus on the latter, as a fellow Southwest MP, what investment has he made in Dorset on growth, jobs, bringing people's bills down, not just there, but across the region? I thank for but across the region? I thank for championing the opportunity which was announced by her council recently.

Offshore wind, hydrogen, nuclear, carbon capture technologies and industries at the heart of the plan for clean energy and will create opportunities around the create opportunities around the country, including the South-West. country, including the South-West.

12:17

Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

The infrastructure plan reiterated government support for a third runway at Heathrow and that project has been repeatedly stated as being privately funded. There is a huge risk a private company would undertake would want that underwritten by government and so can the chief secretary claim how much cash has been earmarked to enable the runway at Heathrow?

12:17

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

She will now we are waiting for detailed proposals from Heathrow for the development of the third runway and announcements will be made in due course when decisions have been taken.

12:18

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

I would like to answer this question with question 16. The year before we came to the tax gap was £47 billion, unacceptable. That is why we announced the most ambitious package of tax measures at budget and went further in the micro Spring Statement. We have recruited 5500 more compliance officers, invested in better technology and close loopholes. There will be further loopholes. There will be further announcements of measures in the Budget in the autumn.

12:18

Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)

- -

An increasingly common issue on high streets is phoenixing, when a shop continues to trade without shop continues to trade without being VAT or business rates. Can we encourage the Minister to look and see if the Harry Potter theme shops are planned by the rules and ensure that legitimate small businesses on the high street are supported? the high street are supported?

12:19

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

My honourable friend is an advocate for tackling those who do not play by the rules. I am unable to comment on individual fears because of my position but I recognise the issue he refers to. We are determined to tackle the problem and HMRC is working across government on enforcement action government on enforcement action including the insolvency issue. including the insolvency issue.

12:19

Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Is the Minister agree that handing away £500 million of taxpayer money to those entitled to small business rate relief which is what has happened in Conroe over the last 10 years would be far better to invest that money in desperately invest that money in desperately needed first homes for local families don't give it to second homeowners and with the Minister meet with me to drive a better better message of achieving housing justice through tax policy? justice through tax policy?

12:20

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

I would happily hear from the honourable gentleman about he will support homebuilding lands in his constituency and across the country. We know that the most important thing to tackle the housing crisis is to support government reforms to the housing system to build 1.5 million new homes and investing £39 billion over the program which is the biggest in a generation.

12:20

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Topical number one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government is delivering on the priorities of the British people. Yesterday the Office for people. Yesterday the Office for National Statistics confirmed the UK was the fastest growing G7 nation in the first quarter of this year. the first quarter of this year. Since the election, this government Since the election, this government has brought in £120 billion of private investment into the economy. The ICap in four interest-rate cuts, lowering mortgages, 384,000 new lowering mortgages, 384,000 new jobs, over 1000 per day since the government was elected and real wages, more investment in the last wages, more investment in the last 10 years of the last Conservative government underplayed us for a full-time worker on the National

12:21

John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)

- -

full-time worker on the National Living Wage. That is the difference the government is making a 14 years of mismanagement by the party opposite.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And award-winning bookshop deli

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And award-winning bookshop deli has been forced to cut hours because of increases in national insurance. At the base of the Chancellor hyper

12:21

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

At the base of the Chancellor hyper small businesses suffering because of the reckless decisions of this Labour government? Labour government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This government actually increased the employment elements increased the employment elements from £5000 to £10,500, meaning it -- Italy 65,000 employers will not be Italy 65,000 employers will not be National Insurance and 50% will gain National Insurance and 50% will gain or see no change. The Lloyd's barometer showed business confidence

12:22

Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)

- -

barometer showed business confidence at a 9-year high and I cannot comment on individual businesses but that is the system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to ask about the 200 £200 million National Grid project, how million National Grid project, how it is accessed, the minimum and maximum amount and if it is it was maximum amount and if it is it was for businesses within the

12:22

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Grangemouth site?

12:23

Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)

- -

£200 million is available and the government will of course look at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals for investing that. The U-turn on the winter fuel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The U-turn on the winter fuel payment will cost 1/4 of £1 billion and it is adding to the unfunded Labour black hole. This is from the Chancellor who said she would never make a spending commitment without explaining where money was coming explaining where money was coming from, yet another U-turn. The Chancellor has also said that her Chancellor has also said that her fiscal rules are ironclad and nonnegotiable. Could she reaffirm

12:23

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

that or are we heading for yet another U-turn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It would be easy to take it more seriously if the party opposite seriously if the party opposite where not voting against welfare reforms that they have not committed reforms that they have not committed to fully reversing the change, which will cost a further £400 million that they cannot explain. I'm always grateful to the right honourable grateful to the right honourable gentleman for his questions because he offers a useful lesson in what not to do. Even George Osborne now says the Shadow Chancellor has no says the Shadow Chancellor has no credible economic plan.

I will say credible economic plan. I will say that he knows a thing or two about welfare spending because on his watch, the UK became the only G7 country with an employment rate country with an employment rate stock below pre-pandemic levels. -- Stock. The cost of working age

12:24

Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)

- -

Stock. The cost of working age activity rose by £15.7 billion a year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right honourable lady did not categorically rule out the categorically rule out the possibility of changing fiscal rules in the autumn. Given that, will she at least confirmed that she stands at least confirmed that she stands by her commit and not to raise the rate of income tax, national rate of income tax, national insurance, VAT in the autumn? Is it

12:25

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

insurance, VAT in the autumn? Is it a yes or another potential U-turn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We met a commitment of the manifesto not to increase the key

12:25

Joe Morris MP (Hexham, Labour)

- -

manifesto not to increase the key taxes that working people pay and we stick by that commitment because, unlike the party opposite, we stick

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by our manifesto. Many of my constituents have lost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many of my constituents have lost access to bank branches. The closures have a huge impact on closures have a huge impact on communities but the rules on banking cups are often too restrictive. All

12:25

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

cups are often too restrictive. All my honourable friend with me to discuss dealing with this issue in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my constituency and beyond? We understand the importance of in-person banking in his constituency and elsewhere and that is why we have committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the UK. I was happy to meet with my I was happy to meet with my honourable friend and there will be a financial inclusion strategy published later this year which has

12:26

Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)

- -

published later this year which has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

emphasis on access to banking. More than 50% of all local authorities are having to overspend on the dedicated school grant to on the dedicated school grant to cover the increasing cost of SEND cover the increasing cost of SEND services and the increasing demand for borrowing has pushed up interest rates. Even before the SEND white paper is published, can IOC paper is published, can IOC Chancellor to introduce an interest-rate that is concessionary and perhaps will avoid councils

12:26

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

and perhaps will avoid councils having to put up council tax and cut spending money on services instead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for that question. The honourable that he and members of this House will have seen in the Spending Review a real-terms uplift Spending Review a real-terms uplift in school spending if the year in this Parliament as well as this Parliament as well as additional capital investment to additional capital investment to help rebuild our schools after the rooms were literally crumbling under the previous government. The Education Secretary will be Education Secretary will be publishing a Green Paper on SEND reform in the autumn and we have allowed the statutory overrate for local authorities for SEND education

12:27

Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)

- -

for a further two years while beeping in the forms. We want to make sure that mainstream schools are more inclusive for all children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been argued that the support for the disabled is fiscally unsustainable because it is forecast unsustainable because it is forecast to rise to £57 billion a year by 2020-30. What assessment has been 2020-30. What assessment has been made of the fiscal stability of the structural tax breaks currently

12:27

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

structural tax breaks currently costing HMRC £207 million per year? I thank my honourable friend the question. At the Budget last, got rid of non-dom tax status, increase rid of non-dom tax status, increase capital gains, put VAT on private schools, and did the ripple for private equity, and to measures to raise £40 billion and we are raise £40 billion and we are investing £300 billion down the plans we inherited from the party

12:28

Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

plans we inherited from the party opposite. We are the only country...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have got to get through it. Businesses and individuals in North Shropshire can be the biggest factor holding back growth in our area is poor public transport. area is poor public transport. Shropshire is purely served by the transport plan and the Spending transport plan and the Spending Review focus on city areas. How will the Chancellor improve transport in

12:28

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

the Chancellor improve transport in rural areas to drive the growth that we desperately need the amount?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are increasing transport investment by 1.9% in real terms investment by 1.9% in real terms after HS2 in every year of the Spending Review period and extending

12:29

Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)

- -

Spending Review period and extending the cap on bus fares which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly relevant to rural areas. We have had to make tough

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have had to make tough decisions and it is core to efforts for growth and so does the

12:29

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

for growth and so does the Chancellor believe that putting more money in the pocket of those on low income is the best thing we can do to boost the economy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People will be better off as a consequence of the decisions this Labour government is taking at the Labour government is taking at the end of this Parliament and we have increased the National Living Wage to benefit the million people with

12:29

Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

to benefit the million people with full democracy and an increase in the wedgies every year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On Friday, I had the privilege of visiting a much respected palliative care facility in Leicestershire. At care facility in Leicestershire. At full capacity, can offer a number of bad but due to measures such as the height and national insurance they are only operating 18 beds. Can I

12:29

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

are only operating 18 beds. Can I ask the Chancellor again to consider softening the impact of measures, particularly on such charities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sure the Health Minister will be happy to meet representatives of the hospice but representatives of the hospice but the Health Minister sat out the settlement at the end of last year to compensate financially for the to compensate financially for the increase in national insurance but those increases in National Insurance are funding the NHS which

12:30

Frank McNally MP (Coatbridge and Bellshill, Labour)

- -

Insurance are funding the NHS which helps to fund hospices.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This government has delivered record real-terms improvements for record real-terms improvements for Scotland at the Spending Review. It was deeply concerning to hear the news from Scotland last week of a black hole of £2.6 billion and public finances which could see NHS public finances which could see NHS bandages by 12%. Does my regular friend agree that the long-standing friend agree that the long-standing record of fiscal mismanagement by the SNP must end and ministers must

12:30

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

the SNP must end and ministers must ensure the money gets to struggling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a result of our Spending Review Scotland will receive an additional... Over this Parliament. The largest increase in funding. The only because of the black hole in

12:31

Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

- -

only because of the black hole in the budget is because of the SNP. the budget is because of the SNP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Care company in my constituency said they feel the government is waging war on the care sector. I met residents and staff at sector. I met residents and staff at funding lunch at a care home and the manager told me they cannot recruit locally at all because of the changes they are struggling to changes they are struggling to recruit nationally. I know the

12:31

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

recruit nationally. I know the government want to build our own work. What are they planning to do to support local organisations we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get that trade in place to be do not see care homes going bust? Can I thank the honourable member for her question. On behalf of the for her question. On behalf of the House and social care workers that the service they provide and all of our constituencies. Because of the commitment of this Labour government commitment of this Labour government social workers the social care system we have increased funding to local government settlement by £4 billion to social care by 28/29 and

12:32

Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )

- -

billion to social care by 28/29 and will be bringing forward a fair payment agreement to make sure there is a fair deal for those serving our constituents on the frontline.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The main benefit of Brexit has been to printers because of all of the extra paperwork previous government has created. The previous government has created. The National Audit Office has estimated their border arrangements have cost us £4.7 billion and rising. And the

12:32

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

us £4.7 billion and rising. And the single trade window will add to that red tape. Does the Chancellor agree with me the best way to reduce these paperwork requirements in the first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place is to do a good deal with Europe and country updated on her progress with that? I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for her question. And of course you will her question. And of course you will have seen the Prime Minister's work and recent relations with the EU. She also mentioned the Single Trade Window and through this government's

12:32

Jack Rankin MP (Windsor, Conservative)

- -

intention to deliver that Single Trade Window and of course more widely the government is committed to reducing the administrative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

burdens the businesses and trade internationally. We all know there is a difference between welfare cuts and welfare reform. These cuts with the Treasury of mandarins, it is the same thing that Winter Fuel Payments taken from

12:33

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

that Winter Fuel Payments taken from pensioners. Now they have U-turned on both of those, when will they finally back British and U-turn on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the family farm tax? The problem with the Conservative party is they increase they support all of the funding but they do not support any of the ways of funding it Agricultural Property Relief it Agricultural Property Relief remains states with more than -- remains states with more than -- estates worth more than £3 million will be taxed at half the rate the

12:33

Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )

- -

normally are. That will I think be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And decision based on the environment we face. The economic Secretary is reviewing the work of the Financial

12:33

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

reviewing the work of the Financial Ombudsman Service and we recognise on the committee there have been challenges that service but how do we make sure consumer voices are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also central to the review? I thank my honourable friend I have been with Which? And other consumer representatives and I can reassure her we are obviously reviewing it but we want to make sure there is a simple resolution sure there is a simple resolution service which quickly and effectively deals with complaints so consumers can get a fair deal but also the financial services firms do

12:34

Susan Murray MP (Mid Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

also the financial services firms do not or are not subject to the regulator in the ways they are currently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Following the pension Ministers response to me about pensioner living standards, what specific... Will support pre-1997 Defined Benefit us currently receiving minimal or no annual

12:34

Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

uplift? I thank my honourable friend for her question she is right to her question she is right to highlight the question of pensioner living standards and we are taking action right away across the board to deal with that. You will have seen increases in the paid -- the state pension in April. We have seen nearly 60,000 extra awards Pension Credit over the years since last July compared to the year previously. Directly on the question of pre-1997 index, as she raises, it was discussed with the work and Select Committee.

Recently we have set out our response to the committee report. committee report.

12:35

Catherine Atkinson MP (Derby North, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Back in Rolls-Royce, a business who deliver Small Modular Reactors with £2.5 billion of investment shows what Labour's new industrial strategy is about. Acting British business, creating more skilled jobs and delivering clear energy. McLean energy. After years of chaos opposite, does the Chancellor agree Britain is unashamedly open for business?

12:35

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for that question. We are proud as a government to back Rolls-Royce. And to have their as our provider. For the small modular reactors program. Resulting in lower bills and mortgage jobs. Particularly in mortgage jobs. Particularly in Derbyshire. From responses to my Parliamentary Question as we know, the median earner can expect to pay £273 more in tax this year under £273 more in tax this year under Labour. When the Chancellor sat on the side of the House she described the side of the House she described freezing tax thresholds as taking from the pockets of working people.

She accepts she is the one picking She accepts she is the one picking the pockets of working people now? In the Budget last year we increased taxes by £40 billion. But without affecting the pay packets of ordinary working people. We did not increase in national insurance, their income tax or their VAT. And we did not go ahead with the wrong headed increases in fuel duty that was put in by the party opposite. We are protecting working people in the party opposite picked pockets time and time again.

and time again.

12:36

Perran Moon MP (Camborne and Redruth, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Ports and engines of economic growth and sectors like energy and good common rules. Falmouth port in my neighbouring constituency surrounded by massive tin and lithium deposits has ambitious plans to play its part. In line with our manifesto commitment of 1.5 billion ports fund, can the Chancellor outline what mechanisms the National Wealth Fund of GB Energy can employ to invest in ports? ports?

12:37

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for that question and he will know that this government have already invested through the National Wealth Fund in the tin mine in his own constituency. Bringing good quality jobs and paying decent wages to the people of Cornwall as advocated by Cornish MPs. There is more we can do through the National Wealth Fund including investing in our ports which is absolutely vital for the clean, cheap energy to create good jobs in this country including in Cornwall. Cornwall.

12:37

Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)

- -

Thank you. A recent FOI request has revealed for a number of schemes, HMRC settled with large corporations for just 15% of what was owed. The Loan Charge review ongoing. The Chancellor agree with me individuals should be treated no differently to this precedent set of large corporations? large corporations?

12:37

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and he has engaged with me about the Loan Charge previous to. As he knows there is an independent review into the Loan Charge ongoing at the moment. I think it is really important I as a Minister do not comment on that and let the independent review to its work and report back to us as a government.

12:38

Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)

- -

Thank you. The Loan Charge scandal is absolutely awful and devastating for tens of thousands of people's lives. It failed to be addressed under the last government, can the Minister please tell us what he is doing to make sure people are not still being sold this illegal product?

12:38

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

I thank my honourable friend very much for her question. I can reassure her alongside the Loan Charge review, the government has published a consultation with a, hence a package of measures to close in on the tax avoidance. These trying schemes both as we know deprive public services of funding and leave their clients with unexpected tax bills.

12:38

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)

- -

Does the Chancellor believe the changes she has made to the employers national insurance con traditions will lead to higher levels of employment or will it lead to higher levels of unemployment?

12:39

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Let's look at the record so far. There are 385,000 more jobs in the UK economy today than there were when Labour came to office a year ago. That is more than 1,000 jobs per day. Businesses are voting with their feet, taking on more workers because of the policies by this Labour government compared to the Tory policies which took our economy down. down.

12:39

Callum Anderson MP (Buckingham and Bletchley, Labour)

- -

People living longer, meaning they face more complexity choices. The news advice regime pronounced -- announced by the government yesterday is welcome and will make people make better decisions. -- Help people make better decisions. What steps will the covenant be taking to help firms deliver better advice on scale especially to young people and self implode?

12:40

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

We are really excited about targeted support because it means firms will be able to make suggestions to consumers with similarities and will make sure they can invest and have confidence to invest in the long-term and also give them better support, not advice on their pensions as well.

12:40

Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)

- -

After that answer can I ask the Minister to confirm one of the regulatory barriers in that area is privy and electronic communications regulations that will prevent firms from proactively reaching out to customers to offer that targeted support. As part of the review will she ensure that specific regulatory change is amended so that effect can happen?

12:40

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

I can assure him we are looking at this and we will make sure firms can take the advantages and targeted support to ensure their consumers are better off and they are able to suggest that targeted support to them so they can make more of their money and indeed get a better pension as well. pension as well.

12:41

Sonia Kumar MP (Dudley, Labour)

- -

Thank you. 58% of investors think it is important their stocks and shares ices are invested in UK companies. Currently does estimated 100 held in people's cash ices who do not have stocks and shares ices, what steps is my right honourable friend taking to encourage further investment and invest in UK companies? companies?

12:41

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

As we set out at the Spring Statement we are looking at the balance between investments in cash and investments in stocks and shares in ice as. We want to get that balance right and we understand the importance of a rainyday buffer for people in cash but we also need to give people the confidence to invest which is a win-win, it is a win for them and a win for British companies them and a win for British companies who are listed on our stop and share.

12:41

Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

My constituent suffers from fibromyalgia and mental health issues and she has grown up in most of her life and ill-health. Under the reforms she is going to lose her entitlement to PIP and push her into poverty. Can the Chancellor give Jackie the reassurance she needs that she will not be left in poverty?

12:42

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Yes I can absolutely give my assurance to Jackie and other people. You are currently claiming personal independence payments. They will see absolutely no change in their entitlement. That is what the Secretary of State for work and announced to this chamber yesterday. That everybody who is currently on those benefits will see no change whatsoever. The Timms review which will be co-produced with disabled people and those who represent them will build a new system for the future full future full

12:42

John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Does the Minister agree we are driving growth across every part of the country with investments at the spending review including 15.6 billion for transport projects in city regions and additional support that I saw myself in Warwickshire with launch of their electric bus fleet including buses built and Alexandra Dennis in this country and it shows a government that is investing in the future, prosperity of our country. Like in the future prosperity of our country. country.

12:43

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

It was great to be with my honourable friend in Warwickshire just a couple of weeks ago. To welcome some of the investment through our Industrial Strategy and other Spending Review that will turbocharge British economy creating more good jobs paying decent wages in all parts of the country including Warwickshire. including Warwickshire.

12:43

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you very much. Last week ahead of the launch of the ethnicity code, the lending standards Board announced it will be closing following withdrawal of support from major High Street banks. This was going to be a groundbreaking step towards tackling the barriers of ethnic minority business owners they face in accessing finance. Can I ask the Chancellor, what steps the government will take to ensure the ethnicity code is implemented, supported and scaled so its principles are embedded across the financial sector thank you.

12:44

Emma Reynolds MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Wycombe, Labour)

- -

Can I reassure the honourable lady government is committed to ensuring firms continue to deliver good customer outcomes now and in the future with proportionate regulation and oversight. I am happy to engage with her in more detail on the subject you mentioned.

12:44

Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much. Can the Chancellor provide an update on the vital project in the Humber?

12:44

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for that question. The spending review, we were unable to build on the investment we had already made in Merseyside and Deeside with track one of Kaaba texture and storage -- carbon capture and storage and put investment both into The Acorn Project in Scotland and also the Viking project in the Humber to support this government's ambitions for Britain to leave the way in carbon capture and storage, creating more good jobs in all parts of the country.

Including in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That includes -- that concludes questions. I will let the Frontbench

12:45

Ministerial statement: Launch of the Parental Leave Review

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We We come

12:45

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come to We come to state We come to state rents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come to state rents. With your permission, I wish to make a statement on the manifesto commitment to review the system of entitlement to parental leave. This government is dedicated to delivering more for working families and the Plan to Make Work Pay is central to achieving this in terms of raising opportunities across the country and regional studies. It will help people to stay and work, improve job security and pest living standards. This includes helping working parents and supporting them to balance work and home lives.

We know the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is a challenging time in the life of a family and the current system does not support working families as well as it could. For example, parents groups and campaigners have long argued that the currently leave is too short and does not compare well with other countries and evidence shows that it is low take-up for shows that it is low take-up for partners taking up parental leave. A low percentage of mothers and fathers are using the entitlement and the survey also showed 30% of fathers are not looking to to leave due to the rental reasons.

We are committed to improving the current system and are currently taking action. We are trying to help employers fill vacancies. We will contribute to increasing productivity and benefiting the economy. We hope to improve the parental leave system through the Employment Rights Bill. Employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from the first day of employment. The bill contains a number of other measures which will improve the support that working families receive and put in place legislation to make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers coming back to work for a period of six months after their return except in specific circumstances.

It requires all large employers produce action plans which will contribute to closing the gender pay gap. I am pleased to announce the government is going further and taking another step forward to delivering improvements for working families. I'm pleased to launch the Parental Leave Review today, fulfilling our commitment to reform the system to support working families. The review will form part of the plan for change, fulfilling two of the current's missions, economic growth, and pricking them barriers to opportunity.

It will support the current's commitment to raising living standards, giving children the best start in life. It is a much needed opportunity to improve parental prey and will be balanced with businesses and the Exchequer. This review will be call that by the Department of Business and Trade and the Department of Work and Pensions. These departments have the main responsibility for the current framework. It will be working across government to look at the impact the system has on policies and other departments.

The current system has declined gradually over time. Some paternity arrangements were set out in 1891 in a bill that introduced the idea that women who work in factories cannot work for four months after giving birth. Subsequent entitlements have been added as needed has been emerging specific groups and this does not always work cohesively on the hall and the piecemeal approach means the system has never had a set of objectives for what it should deliver. This is an opportunity to understand parental leave and pay and what we want the system to achieve.

We will use the review to establish what Britain needs from the system, support the economy, and deliver improvements for working families. We have set four objectives as the starting point and intend to test them as we progress to make sure you are truly reflecting the needs of the nation. The first objective -- we are truly. The first objective is to support women through pregnancy and after giving birth. The second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance their careers after starting a family.

There is focus on improving women's labour market outcomes and tackling the gender pay gap. We must ensure there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support the well-being appearance which includes facilitating the best start in life for babies and children, supporting health and development outcomes. The fourth object is to support parents to make balanced choices at work for the family situation including call parenting and reflecting the modern work and shall. We must build a fair parental leave system for families with different types of parents and different employment status is.

The second consideration is balancing costs to businesses and the Exchequer and examining how the system can support economic opportunities for businesses and families. As part of this, the review will consider opportunities to make the system simpler for businesses and parents. The final consideration focuses on society. For example, supporting the child poverty strategy and shifting gender norms around childcare. All the current and upcoming P entitlements will be in the scope of the review, enabling us to consider how the system could operate as a complete system and provide the support available for working families.

We will consider the individual and existing entitlements, how best to help families, and wider issues and themes. We will look at working families who do not qualify for existing statutory entitlements and that was self-employed parents. It will consider the system more broadly. This will be an evidence- based review which reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the system. We welcome views from and intend to engage constructively with a wide range of stakeholders and groups representing parents and families, including trade unions and employers and representatives.

There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute use and expertise throughout the review including taking evidence, which launches today. We will take evidence in relation to the objectives of what we want the system to deliver. This review launches today. We expected to run for a period of 18 months. We will conclude the review with a set of findings, a good mum, including the next steps for any potential reforms before fermentation. This is a report Mr proper to ensure that our liberal laws are fit for the new House.

House.

12:53

Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)

- -

From personal experience, as a father of three, I understand the importance of other spending time at home with their newborns and supporting mothers in the early days. Having experienced paternity leave as a member of Parliament in 2020 and 2021 as well as differently in 2016 while self-employed, I am pro the UK does already offer some of the most generous paternity rights. Of course, there is always room for improvement. Indeed, conservatives introduced shared parental leave, allowing you parents to spend precious time caring for their newborns.

It is with interest that we digest the contents of the ministerial statement today. I have deep reservations about the substance and timing. I understand the plates that this review will be done and dusted within one year. It is curious that they have chosen today of all days to launch it and I have no doubt the state has been rushed into the hands of the Minister to deflect from what I suspect will be a difficulty of parliamentary business for the government.

That much is clear and since the secretary of state was entirely incapable of confirming how much statutory paternity pay currently is this morning. I welcome the apology but he admitted that he should know and perhaps the Minister should know and perhaps the Minister can set the record straight. I would like to take the opportunity to be crystal clear that conservatives are crystal clear that conservatives are not opposed to the parental leave as long as it is proportionate and affordable.

They have been left with no breathing because there is choices that have driven choices that have driven unemployment by July last year and businesses are contending with taxes on jobs that Labour promised would never come and now they are staring down the barrel of 300 pages of union-led redtape in the employment Bill which will upset a carefully balanced and fair relationship employees and employers that has spanned decades. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open that box.

No real business supports that. The five biggest business groups have warned against it. It will make hiring copper and force employers to take -- it will make hiring more tough and for simplicity tough decisions and force people out of the workforce. Flexible working will be almost obliterated from the job market. The measures which employers and employees have benefited from four years to allow businesses to take a chance on new hires. Businesses across the UK have had no choice but to cut jobs, reduce errors, and put hiring on pause because of the Chancellor's toxic treatment of enterprise.

I will spell it out for the government front bench. It is straightforward. It's not possible to benefit from employment rates people do not have a job in the first place. With that in mind, a deeply concerns me that there was only a passing mention of business. Not one person around the Cabinet table has an eagle experience in business. The government admitted the review, which they said would be done by now, will take if you must. Over 18 months, we will watch the impact of the antibusiness policies transform from a drip to Adele Judge with investment in capital for services, the club and rates bills, and implement will rise and businesses will close and any chance of growth will be sucked on the economy and so it is well and good to announce this in the House today.

Let us be no doubt, concludes at 18 months, the British economy will be stripped of all signs of life because of the choices Labour have made.

12:57

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I take it that the shadow minister is not in support of the review. Can I correct him on a few points? Of course, it is not coincidence that this is being announced today because it is a clear manifesto pledge that we will launch the review within one year of taking office and we celebrate that outstanding election victory. It is an update to statutory paternity pay and from representations that already, we know many do not think it is the great level.

He mentioned how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open this box but was under this government that we got the right to statutory paternity pay and other family-friendly rates which he has taken advantage of. We know where the Conservative Party stand on this issue and what he says it has gone too far, I don't quite know what was meant by that but I think it means they would roll back think it means they would roll back some of the gains from family friendly policies.

And of course he does not miss an opportunity to mention the Employment Rights Bill. I suggest he has a word with the Secretary of State because he clearly has not read it. I do for him to his recent open letter to businesses where he mentioned issues in relation to the bill. First of all, he complained that we created the Fair Work Agency, forgetting that there was a similar pledge in previous Conservative manifestoes. He refers to an introductory measure on electronic industrial action balloting which the Conservative Party will be a big fan of, given the number of leadership elections the number of leadership elections they have taken part in.

He needs to inform the shadow Secretary of State that it is not in the bill so I don't know where he thinks that has come from. We will introduce electronic balloting but it is not in that bill because there are existing powers to implement that. He also mentioned that there was going to be a trade union rights erosion and I do not know if he was searching for a new mobile phone contract at the time but no such rate exists. He needs to keep up to date with the latest Lloyds business barometer which says business confidence is now at a 9-year high.

Firms expect high staffing levels and coming years and that is a sign of the government getting things

13:00

Sarah Owen MP (Luton North, Labour)

- -

Before I start I want to say it is great to see so many and almost every single party represented here but one. The four empty chairs in front of us for the reform MPs. They like to bang on a bus about family values -- bang on about family values but when it comes to standing up for dads and families and parents they are nowhere to be seen. I would like to thank the Minister, my honourable friend for acting on the importance of shared parental leave.

And on paternity leave as someone who had a C-section, I was so grateful to my husband and their employers for granting more than two weeks leave. As everyone knows if you have a C-section you are not supposed to lift up a kettle for even six weeks. It is impossible. We also know not everyone is that fortunate. This is especially true for self-employed people. The Women and Equalities Unit took evidence of parental leave and heard nearly 1/3 of self-employed dads and other parents did not take a single days leave following the birth of their child.

So how will this review ensure self-employed parents needs will be taken into account? will be taken into account?

13:01

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank the generals -- the chair of the Select Committee for her contribution is full so she has raised a very important point and we are studying the recent report on this issue with interest. It is important we look at how all those in the different forms of employment are able to take advantage of parental leave in one form or another because it is really important. As my honourable friend mentioned. Not just for the specific circumstances she referred to but for bonding with the child, the parent should be there in those early weeks.

That is something the review will definitely be considering. considering.

13:02

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. Can I thank the Minister for the advanced sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the government commitment to the much-needed review on parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are I watering and the balance between family life and work have only become harder and harder to strike.

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an overhaul of the parental leave system to give parents a genuine choice over how they manage their responsibilities in a first few months of their child's life. If I could just generally correct the shadow Minister. The Liberal Democrats were proud to introduce shared parental leave into government however years later millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home with around one quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay. As we welcome this review into parental leave I urge the government to look more broadly into the prevalent inequality and caring responsibilities.

I ask what steps are they taking to support the millions of family carers who are looking after disabled relative -- disabled or elderly relatives until they look into a similar review for unpaid carers Anthony Carer's Leave paid? I ask the Minister will they commit to reviewing the needs of carers and those taking on kinship caring responsibilities. I welcome that commitment in his statement today. It can I ask about the government's plans to introduce statutory kinship carers lie. We are asking the covenant finally deliver a meaningful reforms and deliver the long-standing reforms carers and their loved ones as well as making the changes for working families that can make parenting a joy rather than a burden.

An end the dilemma of having to choose between work and family. Thank you.

13:04

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Can I welcome the support from the Liberal Democrats on this issue. She was right to point out of course it was in the coalition government shared parental leave. I think that is the first time in a long time we have ever heard anyone admit they were part of the coalition government. But there we go. She raised some very important points. I think a number of these issues will be covered by the Carer's Leave review that is also taking place.

Kinship caring is going to be part of this particular review. Officially I know the Liberal Democrats have a long- standing policy on Carer's Leave and pay. I believe that is something the review will take into account. Thank you. I welcome the announcement made you. I welcome the announcement made by the Minister today. I think of the HGV driver that I met recently the HGV driver that I met recently who said to me he was not able to take the time off to be with his partner and their newborn baby.

I would like to hear the Minister assure me and all of my constituents these new rights for working class people as well as the people on people as well as the people on higher incomes in professional jobs. higher incomes in professional jobs. With the Minister agree with me that with today's announcement with free school meals announcement, with our childcare announcement and with our childcare announcement and with our announcements on housing, it is now clear the Labour Party are the party of the family? I thank my honourable friend for her question.

I think one of the real achievements of the last Labour government is to recognise giving children the best start in life is absolute fundamental to rebuilding our society. That is something that is hard -- at the heart of what we have proposed today. She does raise an important point. Actually these entitlements do have an element of income and equality to them. That is something we will be bearing in mind. One of the messages we have put our very clearly as many fathers in particular would like to take more paternity leave and simply cannot afford to that is something we will be looking at as part of the review.

13:06

Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)

- -

Thank you. Having a child is a personal choice. It is a blessing that I have enjoyed five times. Becoming old, becoming sick and becoming disabled are not personal choices. And yet we have had cuts to interview allowance and about to start to discuss a bill controversially in this House that would remove a large element of the support we currently give sick and disabled people. What does that say about the government priorities? about the government priorities?

13:07

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

The honourable member will know the Winter Fuel Allowance has been restored for many people in this country. There has actually been a clary -- are very clear answer the Chancellor just gave claimants of PIP will not be affected by the announcement. One of the things we are looking at in the round is ensuring people are able to be supported to stay in work as part of the Charlie Mayfield review and I think that is something I would have hoped the Conservatives would have supported as well.

Thank you. Can I warmly welcome --

13:07

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

Can I warmly welcome the Minister's statement today. As a recent dad with two very recent experiences I know just how valuable paternity leave is for fathers. And good companies do as well. I know Tesco and other good employers are already increasing the paternity leave offer for their employees because they know a good workforce is a happy workforce. Can I encourage the Minister to actively pursue those companies who have already increased their paternity leave offers. To get their data and insights fed into the review with a view to permanently increase paternity leave? paternity leave?

13:08

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

Can I congratulate my honourable friend on his recent parenthood and also pay tribute to the honourable member for New York who I understand is on paternity leave as we speak. is on paternity leave as we speak. He has mentioned a very important point about businesses and good businesses understanding and treating their staff well. I would like to draw the houses attention to a quote from the chief people Officer for Aviva who operate a very progressive parental leave policy.

He said, the chance to spend more time with the new arrival during the important first few months has proved to be hugely beneficial for thousands of our Aviva parents. Supporting their partners to has a positive impact on mental well-being and engagement in family life and there has been reports that being life changing for our people. Those are the sorts of things we want to encourage businesses to look at. I am sure some will be doing that and we are happy to hear any evidence on these matters.

13:09

Mike Martin MP (Tunbridge Wells, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. As someone who is about to welcome their second child into the world, thank you very much, it is a delight to be discussing parental leave. I welcome this view. I know the Minister said one of the objectives of this, to paraphrase is to reset the relationship between men and women and to make that more equal. Might I suggest gently that this is necessary but not sufficient and really to get to the heart of that matter we need to look at early years funding.

When you have a gap, when it is £6.12 provided by the government and providers in my constituency at the little learning tree say it is £7.50 for delivery, I think we have a problem there. It will mean the parental leave review is not going to get the heart of that matter. At the Minister consider, including the Department of education -- would the Minister consider including the Department of education in this review so we can education in this review so we can get to the heart of equality between men and women.

13:10

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

The honourable member raises an important point. Clearly this government has done great work already and expanding the availability of affordable childcare. There is always more to do. This will not be something that is specifically part of the vehicle. I can confirm it will be working with other departments to see how their input can help in terms of the their input can help in terms of the outcomes we want to achieve with this review.

13:10

Sarah Smith MP (Hyndburn, Labour)

- -

Thank you. I know the fathers that met with me in my constituency will really welcome this announcement and this debate today. The conversations I have had I have been really struck by the challenges specifically for some of our public sector workers. Teachers being almost forced back one week maybe if they have been able to take that after a holiday period and police officers as well. Particularly they are challenged around not being able to access parental leave and paternity rights.

Will the Minister reassure me this will be absolute you square leading in terms of the review and he will be looking to make progress on these important issues?

13:11

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I think my honourable friend raises some concerning issues. Possibly about the culture of some of these employers. You do not see the value of parental and paternity leave. -- Who do not see the value. I think recruitment and retention is a particular issue and particularly there are not enough male teachers as well. This may be one of the things that is behind that and it is because of that cultural shift and we need to see this. I think those comments and I am sure those comments can be fed in.

13:11

Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)

- -

My constituent Christina Harris very sadly lost her job when she had to take time off to care for her very seriously ill daughter who I am pleased to report is now in remission. Christina started a parliamentary petition calling for employers to hold open the jobs of parents who through no fault their own have to take time off to care for very seriously ill children. A bit like maternity leave in principle. She achieved a debate on Westminster Hall in February which the Minister replied to and then very kindly he met with her some weeks later and if I say so dealt with her incredibly empathetically.

And listened very carefully to what she said. I was there. I certainly -- as he said the review will have a broad scope, his words, can he offer my constituent Christina any hope with regards to her idea? And any hope that approximately 4,000 parents each year who find themselves through no fault their own in Simla circumstances.

13:12

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank the honourable member for his question and it was indeed a pleasure to meet Christina his constituent. She raised a very important issue which we know is not isolated. There is as he will know a Carer's Leave review which is being undertaken which I think is properly the most appropriate forum for this issue but I know it is something he will continue to passionately campaign on and I look forward to campaign on and I look forward to further engagement on that matter.

13:13

Maya Ellis MP (Ribble Valley, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Can I first pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary along with many others for leading from the front on the importance of their own rules as fathers. I to really believe paternity leave is the single most important thing this government can do to improve the lives of families and women too. I hope we can get to providing six weeks paternity leave paid by the covenant at 90% of pay. Support will be critical to making this a success.

Does the Minister agree with me this review is an opportunity to engage and provide clarity to businesses on how to work with paternity leave the parents. with paternity leave the parents.

13:13

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for her question. One of the things that has come clear -- become clear not just in relation to paternity leave but shared per leave is employers often find it difficult to navigate the system but that is something we will be considerably looking at as will be considerably looking at as part of the review. Women surveyed part of the review. Women surveyed by Maternity Action had no financial help during the course of their pregnancy full still given Howell pregnancy full still given Howell for the security -- the statistic is, will the Minister be committed to listening to those with lived to listening to those with lived experience and co-producing the outcomes of this review with those people who have been through the situation? situation? We will of course be looking and taking representations from all interested parties.

There is a call for evidence which is now live and will be up for a period of eight weeks and we will encourage bodies who have got important things to say to feed that in..

13:14

Michael Wheeler MP (Worsley and Eccles, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Alongside this government actions on increasing the provision of affordable and available and accessible childcare, I strongly welcome this review is a real step forward. Does the Minister agree with me for many the complexities of the system we have got former real barrier to accessing it and for low-paid workers in particular, the provision of unpaid leave makes it simply unaffordable? Will he commit this review will have at its heart true access of the system so people can take full benefit of it and spend time with their children? their children?

13:15

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for his question. As recently new father himself he will know the system itself and one of the things we do and he is rightly -- has rightly referred to it, the complexity of the system. And actually the lack of availability and opportunity for those particularly in low paid occupations as well as those who are not directly employed. These are all things Mr Speaker, we will be considering as part of the review. considering as part of the review.

13:15

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

It is of course to be welcomed the government is having a look at our best to support all families of all shapes and sizes in the early weeks and months of a child's life. I know the Minister knows there is currently a gap for those who are south applied looking to grow their family through adoption because we have corresponded on the matter. I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments and he talked about adoption, he talked about self implement but I wonder if he could give constituents like mine the reassurance they are looking for there will be an explicit stream of this work looking at self-employed doctors who currently do not get any doctors who currently do not get any

13:16

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

She has raised this before and I think it is an important point. Having had some experience in the adoption system myself, I understand it does not fit in terms of the current rates system so it is important it is included and those who are currently excluded because they are self-employed are in a relationship that does not fit in the current parameters will also be considered. considered.

13:17

Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )

- -

I welcome this review and I think most in this room, with some exceptions, recognise supporting families and children is in the national interest and I'm pleased to hear the government recognised that parental leave, particularly forefathers, is not enough right now. -- Particularly for fathers. There are also implications for mothers, who may face more discrimination when they have protective rates if dads don't. Given there is consensus we need to do more to support fathers, will the Minister accept the amendment in the Lords made by Baroness Penn to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee that, by the end of the Parliament, we introduced the rate to six weeks leave for the second appellant paid at 90% of salary, then we can make a difference at every stage.

13:18

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

If I was to accept specific recommendations at this point it would be pre-empting the review but I can hear the arguments being made and obviously the other players will decide how they want to proceed with the amendments to the bill. I just the amendments to the bill. I just hope that the hurry up with it.

13:18

Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I add my voice to welcoming the review as the chair of the APPG. It is a step in the right direction in addressing a decade of failure from addressing a decade of failure from the Tories on this issue. They thought allowing people to break the leaf up into chunks of nonrecourse progress. I know that fathers were not in the formal objectives announced by the Minister. Does he accept we cannot achieve those objectives without butter paternity leave? You cannot achieve good physical and mental health without addressing the rights of fathers and birthing partners.

Does he agree to meet with the APPG throughout the review if he accepts this?

13:19

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank the honourable member for his question and I'm happy to meet with the APPG as part of this review. He said that there was no explicit reference to fathers in the four objectives but I would suggest there are general references to parents and so the second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and the fourth objective is to support parents to be balanced childcare choices that work for the family situation, including enabling

13:20

Daniel Francis MP (Bexleyheath and Crayford, Labour)

- -

And the wider review, could be look at these issues for mothers, particularly in the case of multiple births?

13:20

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

It is an interesting point and I have to say it is not one I have considered in terms of if is to be a different approach for multiple births but I'm happy to see any evidence he submits as part of the review. review.

13:20

Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Everyone will know I want to see updates to the law in the UK and this is very important given the important this before and after a path. Will the Minister confirm this fall look at the issue of premature births and make sure those who have a premature baby are not disadvantaged? And can this also be referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly so they can make progress in this regard?

13:21

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

Of course, we will want to work with all devolved nations on these important matters. We would hope that any changes or improvements made are consistent throughout the nation.

13:21

Alice Macdonald MP (Norwich North, Labour )

- -

I welcome the review and we should recognise the journey to becoming a parent is not straightforward. I then was, there are glaring gaps in employment law with no statutory rights for paternity treatment so can the Minister look at this and acknowledge that sometimes you also need leave to become a parent? There need leave to become a parent? There I welcome the comments and her long-standing campaign on this issue. IVF is very much commonplace than it was when these laws were than it was when these laws were introduced.

The process of securing pregnancy in those situations is pregnancy in those situations is very different issue. It is not very different issue. It is not something that is part of the review and we are looking at what happens at point of breath and I'm happy to at point of breath and I'm happy to engage on wider points.

13:22

Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)

- -

-- Point of breath. Tiba Ali offer many women as the challenge of balancing work with feeding a child. There is a lack of facilities and no provisions for restoring breastmilk. Will the review improve conditions for breastfeeding parents and the need for brakes to be able to do so? need for brakes to be able to do so?

13:22

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

That is an interesting point and probably outside the scope of the review. That is more about how people are dealt with in the work pace and this is about ensure that we have got the structures in place to make sure that if we can balance parenting needs with the ability to carry on in work and make the most of those opportunities, and I'm happy to correspond on this matter because it is an interesting point that has been raised.

13:23

Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)

- -

I wholeheartedly welcome the statement. One of my constituents told me that his wife had complications after the birth of one of his children. He could only think two weeks of had to return to a commute of 40 miles leaving his wife to recover. The second time around, he was employed by a Belgian firm and could take more time off. Does the Minister agree that boosting the paternity leave entitlement will go a long way to closing the gender pay gap? gap?

13:24

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I have met with the Dutch and be felt an event and there is an articulate case put forward as to why paternity leave is falling down. I reflect on my own experience some time ago. My first child came before paternity leave was introduced. Yes, I am that old. My second came after paternity leave was enabled in law and I think it speaks to the importance to have time off for fathers in those crucial early weeks.

13:24

Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I welcome the review and the fact that it will look at leave for a kinship care is. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long campaigned for a statutory leave for kinship carers, given their sacrifice and how many fall out of the workforce when they take on the responsibility. Within this time lane of 18 months for the whole review, can I press that kinship care leave might be an area that is fast tracked because the economic impact is so strong in the short and long term that frankly we are to move on that particular aspect quicker than some others that need to be considered.

13:25

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I recognise the consistent campaigning on this particular issue and pay tribute to the work that kinship carers have done to take on responsibilities and I think that is a very articulate case made about the contribution that they have made to society on the whole. I think we have to look at the system on the have to look at the system on the whole. I think it is a deficiency that the system has been built up in a piecemeal way and does not have some of the things that we are looking to introduce.

looking to introduce.

13:26

Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)

- -

It is 55 years since the Equal Pay Act and women are still paid less than man. About 20 years ago I read the report in the newspaper article saying that having a child was catastrophic for the career of women. Will the Employment Rights Bill mature businesses don't just publish the gender pay gap but had to do something about it with mandatory action plans. Could the Minister tell us how the review could help to further reduce the gender pay gap and finally deliver a quality for working women? quality for working women?

13:27

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for her question and campaigning on the issue and she is right to point out that the Employment Rights Bill has important advances on this area. There is a second objective of the review which is to make sure we enable parents to advance careers after starting a family. This will focus on the women's labour market, the outcomes, and tackling the gender pay gap. gender pay gap. gender pay gap.

13:27

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

I thank the Minister very much for the statement. It is positive. I wish to ask a question if I can. The wish to ask a question if I can. The fact that parents cannot share the leave, over 50% of households are on dual income, so with the Minister and the government consider insuring and the government consider insuring mothers and fathers can do this as opposed to the leave being used by one parents solely? Can this take up part of the review? There is always, part of the review? There is always, a pleasure to hear from the honourable gentleman.

He raises an honourable gentleman. He raises an important point about the shared parental leave system and how it is not working and I think we have seen not working and I think we have seen from the figures that people taking advantage is in the low single advantage is in the low single figures and that is something we are aware of and something we will be very conscious of. very conscious of.

13:28

David Baines MP (St Helens North, Labour)

- -

I warmly welcome this. I am also sure that representative of a men's group would warmly welcome this as well. The fathers across the country and cheaper supporting the campaign and saying two weeks is not enough, and from personal experience, it is not, Cathy Mr confirm for the -- can the Minister confirm that the paternity leave in consultation with paternity leave in consultation with employers will be a key focus for this review?

13:29

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank him for his question and he is straight to identify the current paternity leave measures with concern to fathers and it is something be a large focus of the review.

13:29

Mr Connor Rand MP (Altrincham and Sale West, Labour)

- -

Does the Minister agree that as well as being good for parents and children, ensuring fathers can spend appropriate amount of time with children would be good for the economy, productivity, and businesses. businesses.

13:29

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I agree with my honourable friend and we have consistently said and this is ensuring this is the way ahead for prosperity in this country. country.

13:30

Alistair Strathern MP (Hitchin, Labour)

- -

We have to do more on paternity and kinship in particular and I welcome these. I recently had the pleasure of listed a number of parents at a local pub to talk about the challenges caused by the current paternity leave there. It was particularly heartbreaking to hear one man's study, an expectant father, and the impact it was having on him. Ahead of the birth, his wife to be was a high risk case and so he took significantly in advance of the birth and he wanted to be there in the crucial days after the birth, with the family, with his child, who desperately need the support.

It cannot be read. Can I invite the Minister to come and speak to local parents about the impact this review

13:31

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for his question, he certainly knows how to get me to attend the constituency with the offer of a pint, I will take you up on that. Obviously, there has been some changes recently, in terms of neonatal leave and care, which I think is a huge step forward, but in terms of predelivery, issues, that is something we ought to discuss further, so I look forward having a pint and conversation. pint and conversation.

13:31

Chris McDonald MP (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

In his statement, the Minister mentioned the very low level of take-up of shared parental leave, would he agree with me that is partly due to the gap in pay between men and women? And if we can normalise paternity leave in our society, we can help to make sure that both mums and dads have equal pay.

13:32

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for his question, I think that is an important point and something that I expect we will be examining as part of the call for evidence. I refer to the work done in this area, they clearly have seen a culture shift in their organisation, where actually it is completely normal and acceptable, and indeed encouraged, for both parents to take their share of leave. That is something I think we can all take lessons from. we can all take lessons from.

13:32

Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome today's long overdue review of parental leave, the UK currently has amongst the lowest paternity leave in Europe and that is not just a statistic, it is a real life struggle for families up and down this country. Can my honourable friend assure me that the review will not only look at the amount of leave, but the amount of salary that is provided during it, to protect those on the lowest wages in our country? And how he is going to go about assuring the voices of fathers about assuring the voices of fathers and campaigning groups and trade unions are heard in the review?

13:33

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

Well, my honourable friend raises an important point, about the financial implications of this measure. Of course, we will engage with all relevant organisations. The cost is important, we have to of course balance the objectives were trying to achieve here with the cost of the exchequer, and the two businesses, that is what the review will be considering in some detail.

13:33

Shaun Davies MP (Telford, Labour)

- -

I welcome the statement and the review itself, I recently held a dad's drop in event, supported and I heard from dad's about excellent employers doing the right thing, but also from self employers and those who run SMEs about how complex and confusing the system can be. Can the Minister assure the voices of all sizes of dads in this review, but also that often government departments like behind employers in this country. this country.

13:34

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

And I thank my honourable friend for his question. The government should be leading the way in these areas and there are specific examples where can do better, I would be interested to discuss that with colleagues in other departments. He is right to reference the complexity of these issues. One of the things we have heard is businesses, particularly small businesses, sometimes struggle to navigate the paperwork and that is something the review will also be considering.

13:34

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Clean Air (Human Rights)

That completes the statement. Presentation. Not here. We will now go to the 10 minute rule Bill.

13:34

Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)

- -

13:45

Legislation: Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill: Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second reading. Liz Kendall. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I beg to move this bill be read for a to move this bill be read for a second time. This bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the

13:46

Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Leicester West, Labour)

- -

14:08

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

14:29

Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )

- -

The words came. It would be better that I wasn't here. That was also that I wasn't here. That was also his expectation. He tried before. He his expectation. He tried before. He will be safe now but the one who follows, not. Another felt dehumanised as they would lose their independence to shower and dress. And others could not balance the And others could not balance the books as the Scope disability books as the Scope disability books as the Scope disability pricetag is £1095.

Dependent on social care, food banks, pleading for emergency funds or seeking for emergency funds or seeking charity. And those who came to see me with fluctuating conditions just me with fluctuating conditions just do not know where their future lies. do not know where their future lies. These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party. They are far from what this Labour They are far from what this Labour Party is for, a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose. For I am my poor, as is my purpose.

For I am my brother's keeper, these are my constituents, my neighbours, my constituents, my neighbours, my community, my responsibility, and I cannot cross while the other side. For one left alone for the 150,000 will be pushed further into poverty. And as so many of us fear, and as the evidence shows, since 600 people took their lives under the Tories brutal reforms, the tragedy of this ideology could be worse. So I will fight for the purpose of politics, for their livelihoods and their lives.

It is a matter of conscience, deep conscience for me, to ensure that these precious people are treated for once with dignity so they matter for being and not just doing. 16 million, they beg, in the chaos and confusion with a sequence of consultations make no sense to them or to me, I think if we are honest, no sense to any of us in this bill, to just stop and start again with listening to their voices. So at this 11th hour, I plead withdrawal.

We will be met with relief and praise, let's consult, coproduce, incorporate the Mayfield review findings and accommodate those of the Timms review first. Let the voices of older women whose physical health is declining as they work to later life, come to the fore, or disabled victims of mystic violence, as the charity Refuge will not be able to leave to find a place of safety without PIP. The olive branch of grace gives no mercy to claimants to come. Disabled people have fought all their lives not to pull up the ladder behind them.

We are talking about 430 people on PIP losing £4500. 730,000 people on Universal Credit. And pushing 150,000 people Credit. And pushing 150,000 people There is a reason why we are a dystopian state of abject poverty, it is because governments focus on what they value most and for these people, they never get the attention. It pressures services, it shortens lives, and it breaks societies when people are left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind. I am happy to give way. I thank the honourable lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady for giving way and I am proud to put my name to her recent amendment today. name to her recent amendment today. Do you agree with me we have a decision to make in this House today, when we stand alongside some of the most vulnerable, people that feel that politics cannot deliver for them? Actually, we have a moral for them? Actually, we have a moral duty today to stand with those people for exact what she was saying, to stop, pause, show them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saying, to stop, pause, show them that we care right across this House. So powerful and what I would urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So powerful and what I would urge all my colleagues is to take with you today the stories you all know of your constituents. You are here because of their matter expect you because of their matter expect you Because of them and they expect you today, and I have to say, I find it today, and I have to say, I find it hard myself, because I have known of the honourable member for 30 years and I know he comes from a good and I know he comes from a good place, so this -- But this is just wrong and so I believe the honourable member is right.

If we cannot afford not to have a wealth cannot afford not to have a wealth tax, to equalise capital gain, to draw on the expert excess profits, we can help disabled people. Can we can help disabled people. Can clear the waiting list of people falling out of work, hold employers to account for their failings, help them open up doors, and of course, in assessments, we need to ensure we are not just looking at what somebody cannot do, but enable them to be empowered as to what they can.

Optimising health and opportunity, take a public health approach, social prescribing, and advancing adaptive technology. But I say to the Minister why not have a bridge between what we have and where we At the end of this process, so nobody falls through the net. But when disabled people manage discomfort and despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or life has spiralled out of control, don't we believe that they would want for anything else then it to be this way? -- Van it to be this way? I please, do not leave them desperate.

There is a heavy duty on us all and it starts with compassion and kindness. Safety and support. Disabled people want reform but not by this broken bill. My vote weighs heavy, as this is a matter of deep conscious for me, and will be an conscious for me, and will be an should be for us all. As Nelson Mandela said, mail choices reflect your hopes, not your fears. -- Me your choices.

14:34

Mr Speaker

For clarity, is the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member moving her amendment? Yes. OK, the original question was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK, the original question was the bill now be read a second time, since an amendment has been proposed, as in the Order Paper, the question is the amendment to be question is the amendment to be made, I am now going to come to Steve Darling, but just to say, we will be imposing a six minute limit after the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson. Thank you, Mr Speaker and I would like to particularly associate like to particularly associate myself to the speech just made by the Member for York Central. And the the Member for York Central. And the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the amendment that is now under the amendment that is now under debate. Over the last few weeks, we debate. Over the last few weeks, we have had the Green Paper under debate. And it has been disturbing to me, in the extreme, some of the comments coming from the Labour high comments coming from the Labour high command, noises around some of the comments made by the Labour comments made by the Labour backbenches.

People who should really know better in the leadership of the Labour Party, describing PIP

14:36

Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

- -

14:44

Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

- -

Select Committee heard, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have just completed our Pathways to Work inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition, who I think was the Minister for Equalities under the last government, didn't mention, for example, the equality for human rights commission inquiry, that then increased to an investigation, for their potential discrimination of disabled people. And that was specifically Department for Work and Pensions. And that is still outstanding. She didn't mention the United Nations Committee for the rights of disabled people investigating the previous government for breaches in the UN CRPD, not once, twice.

It is a little bit rich hearing that. For the last 15 years, we have seen a punitive, even a dehumanising Social Security system, where not being able to work has been viewed as suspicious, that has had devastating consequences, as my honourable friend, the member for York Central, too many people relying on Social Security to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by other circumstances exacerbated by poverty. There have been 10 preventions of future death reports, since 2010, under the previous administration.

Issued by coroners. Because a direct cause and We don't know the full extent of these claims or even the harms but my committee published a report in May which had five recommendations to prevent harms to claimants. This has been at the forefront of my mind in considering the bill. I want to start by acknowledging some of the real positive measures in the Green Paper the Get Britain Working white paper which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people's lives.

Helping them to get into work. The merger the jobcentres and the National Careers Service, the right to try, the Trailblazer program which will increase the opportunity for people to get closer to the labour market by working with community groups, the voluntary sector, and health bodies as well. Providing employment support, and essentially, keep Britain working, an independent review from Charlie Mayfield and how that will reduce the appalling disability employment gap, again not improved on by the opposition.

Still remaining at 29% or thereabouts for the 15 years they were in power. And their commitment, and this is really important, the commitment to safeguarding which is one of the key measures within the Green Paper. Of course there is the other work the government is undertaking in other departments, increasing NHS capacity to ensure that for example the hip or knee replacement or mental health support is available in weeks, as it was when I was an NHS chair under the former Labour government as well, in weeks we were dealing with these things not the years that people are having to wait now.

The Employment Rights Bill, the Industrial Strategy, and I could go on. The bill as it is currently planned risks undermining some of these excellent initiatives. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. I know she is always fair-minded in this chamber and outside. She will recognise that and outside. She will recognise that 2.5 or perhaps as many as 3 million disabled people enter the workforce under the last Conservative government was to share my concerns government was to share my concerns that the bill today could actually undermine the ability of people with disabilities to enter the labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

market? I think that is what we have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that is what we have to make sure does not happen. I'm being honest, there are risks. As the honest, there are risks. As the evidence that my committee has received as part of our inquiry, we received as part of our inquiry, we are an ageing society with worse health than other advanced economies health than other advanced economies including the cuts in support to working age people. There is a really good reports, pre-pandemic if we increased their health of the worst health areas in the country, worst health areas in the country, we would be increasing our proactivity by over £13 billion.

So proactivity by over £13 billion. So we need to make sure that we look at that in the round. Of course this was exactly... Quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was exactly... Quickly. Health support being redirected to more deprived areas, it is exactly the announcement the Secretary of State for Health made last week. Dr Shi welcome that and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think it will aid and support in improving health outcomes in deprived areas? I haven't yet seen details of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't yet seen details of that that was something received. I will quickly march on. We know that Covid exacerbated the situation was the mental health crisis we have in the mental health crisis we have in the UK especially the young people, the UK millennium cohort study shows the UK millennium cohort study shows the drop of key drivers is because of poverty and austerity and other of poverty and austerity and other issues. But back to the bill, I acknowledge and thank the government for the concession they have made to for the concession they have made to protect existing PIP claimants and people on UC and WRAP with severe people on UC and WRAP with severe conditions was the growing evidence of the potential harms that would have been experienced was have been experienced was significant and it was the right thing to do.

But people who are newly disabled or who acquire a newly disabled or who acquire a health condition from November next year will need help with extra year will need help with extra costs. It is estimated that 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of no logger be eligible for PIP. I am sorry they are not going to give me an extra minute. That will worsen their condition. So it will make it easier for people to live independently if people get that, live independently if they get that.

There is still click confusion about the PIP review. Lippi co- produced with disabled people and organisations? If so why are we seeing the outcome of the review of the new PIP assessment is predetermined? And there lies the problem, most of us know that the dog's breakfast of this bill is being driven by the need to get four points to the OBR to get it to be scored for the budget. The Bank of England governor said we have to stop over interpreting the OBR's forecasts which are fallible.

I urge the government to remove reference to four points in clause 4. There are amendments that the commitment to coproduction, the new PIP assessment on the face of the bill and delaying the implementation of the freezing of UC LCWRA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to speak in this debate. I want to speak from a lived debate. I want to speak from a lived experience. I want to put on record that at one stage after I was shot in the military and I left, I in the military and I left, I received a war pension and after received a war pension and after having some of my foot amputated this year, I'm undergoing reassessment from that process. At reassessment from that process.

At one stage of my life I was diagnosed with complex PTSD and suffered for 15 years with extreme dental health 15 years with extreme dental health which I've openly shared in this chamber. To understand how people can have unforeseen circumstances can have unforeseen circumstances that can impact them. I saw this early from a young age growing up when my dad died and left my mum and when my dad died and left my mum and my two brothers on her own with literally nothing. We had a roof over our heads and I watched my mum go without food to put food on our go without food to put food on our table.

I spoke to my mum at the weekend, and the welfare support she had at that time was a lifeline she had at that time was a lifeline she could not possibly see a way through it if we had not of had it. I grew up on free school meals, understanding that the system supported us and allowed us to get through what was are challenging childhood but I was brought up in a

14:53

Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)

- -

childhood but I was brought up in a loving environment. I've also seen later in life, I lost a business and

14:54

Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

- -

found there is a situation where I could not put food in my children's table. I had support in what was a

14:54

Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)

- -

15:00

Emma Lewell MP (South Shields, Labour)

- -

This is what would reduce the welfare bill and increase employment levels. The impact of any cuts there not be as drastic. The starting point should never be cuts before proper support. The review being led by my right honourable friend the Minister for disabilities, who I have a lot of respect for, is starting to look a little bit predetermined as the changing criteria happened at the same time as the review concludes. He remains unclear how existing claimants with fluctuating conditions will want to be assessed, and the impact these changes will have on Carer's Allowance.

What we do know is that DLA claimants and those on other DLA claimants and those on other legacy benefits will be assessed on different criteria for top putting on the state of the thousand children at risk of losing support. The north-east region has the highest number of disabled people in England. And the number of people searching for work outpaces the number of available jobs. How on earth will cutting the Universal Credit health element incentivised those people to go out and find a job that does not even exist? And since PIP is an in work benefits, restricting the very support that can keep people in work will only help to increase unemployment levels.

And all of this for £2.5 billion worth of savings when we know there are savings that can be made elsewhere. We know those with a broader shoulders could pay more instead we are once again making disabled people pay the price for the economic mess that the party As it stands, we are being asked to vote blind today, there is no new bill, there are no new explanatory notes, there is no fully updated impact assessment, there is no time for sufficient scrutiny.

No formal consultation has taken place with disabled people. The majority of employment support will not be in place until the end of the decade. Access to work remains worse than ever before. And we are creating a two-tiered, possibly three tier benefit system, where we know for certain that disabled people are going to be worse off. This is not a responsible way for any of us to legislate. It is predicted that disabled people will lose on average £4500 per year.

Yet we know they already need an extra £1095 per month, just to have the same standard of living as nondisabled households. There is a reason why 138 organisations representing disabled people are against this bill. There is a reason why there is not a single organisation that has come out in support of it. Madame Deputy Speaker, I am pleading with MPs today, please do not do this. For those on my own ventures, staying loyal to your party today may feel good colour me feel good in this place, but once you go home, once you are in your individual constituency, the reality of this will hit and hit very hard.

Just like in 2015... I am concluding my comments, sorry. Just like in 2015, constituents will never forgive, and it will haunt those MPs who voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for it, I of all people should know. I come here today fuelled by the voices of hundreds of my constituents and I want to speak to constituents and I want to speak to the harm that I think this bill will the harm that I think this bill will cause a rush through the House. How a society treats its most vulnerable members as a real reflection of its progression and intent. And despite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recent U-turns and last-minute changes, people, including children, will be pushed into poverty because of this bill. Thank you, does the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, does the honourable member agree with me that changing life critical benefits in a rush, gambling with people's futures without evidence and only listening when your backbenchers rebel is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply not how governments govern at their best? Thank you for those comments, and I do wholeheartedly agree. Madame Deputy Speaker, as I have said, many Deputy Speaker, as I have said, many of my constituents have raised fears and anxieties about these plans. And as they have been unable to provide as they have been unable to provide their own stories directly because of the government's lack of consultation, I want to use my time to be their voice. Amy from Bramall to be their voice.

Amy from Bramall suffers from ME and her illness can fluctuate our two hour, day-to-day, making it hard to pass assessments making it hard to pass assessments for support. Amy recently appealed

15:04

Tom Morrison MP (Cheadle, Liberal Democrat)

- -

for support. Amy recently appealed to me for assistance, after the DWP withdrew her PIP despite the fact illness was now getting worse. Amy said to me, it is outstanding how I can be reduced to zero points, from receiving high levels of mobility and daily care, when they have not been cured, nor have I had any treatment in how my condition affects my life. In 2018, when I PIP was downgraded, following appeal, it was rewarded back to me. Yet now, without improvement to how I am affected, it has been completely stopped.

Those who have to take consideration, although the documents needed and stress involved, but to cope with this when URL and suffering every single day is simply not sustainable. Amy has been advised of the monetary consideration will take 15 weeks, almost 4 months, so I ask this House, where will Amy get the support she needs during this way? The situation highlights the barriers that people with chronic illnesses and disabilities face when trying to get support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way and would he agree with me these changes risk devastating consequences for people living with complex mental health conditions? Who may not score full points in a single activity but who experience persistent moderate challenges persistent moderate challenges across many areas and could in fact lead to financial hardship and worsening mental health which then worsening mental health which then puts more pressure other services,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which then negates the point of the exercise in the first place. I thank my honourable friend for that, it is incredibly important because whether it is motor neuron because whether it is motor neuron disease, blindness, and ECOM arthritis, mental illness or cancer, these barriers will only be further entrenched should this bill be passed. Disability Stockport is a passed. Disability Stockport is a local charity that specialises in autism and mental health. They have told me they are deeply opposed to these changes that the government is these changes that the government is proposing, they have said to me such cuts exasperate poverty, worsen mental health issues and further reduce the already limited support reduce the already limited support available to the most vulnerable and marginalised people across Greater Manchester.

And we believe this would pose a serious risk of harm. Whilst disability Stockport welcomed Whilst disability Stockport welcomed the government's investment into employment support, they are clear that much more is needed, because of that much more is needed, because of people like Joe. Joan works in financial services, before falling very ill. She explained to me that the persistent and defeated barriers disabled and ill people face. She faces a six-month waiting list were waiting for access to work, how can the government expect more disabled people to work when they have to wait six months just for an assessment? Joan told me it is a degrading process when you are having to work without adjustments, she has to put herself through pain and fatigue, because during her probation period, she does not receive sick leave.

If Joan moves jobs, she would have to start over again, despite there being a registered record for her need to adjustment. This is one example of a lack of full and effective investment into supporting disabled people and Pinocchio people into work. The Greater Manchester coalition of disabled people told me they are concerned for those using PIP for payment and bills, the coalition also express less rushed legislation does not really apply more pressure and give more support to employers for making commendations to disabled people, instead, the bill will protect the status quo and the owners to get support will be on the individual and not employer.

They asked what will happen to the 16-42 who no longer get disability allowance and no longer qualify for PIP? These young people will fall through the cracks and be pushed into poverty. I don't by bringing forward this bill, which will amount to the biggest cut to sickness and disability for a generation, the real-life impact it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is having for hundreds of people in my constituency adding hundreds of thousands of people across constituencies represented by people in this House. I thank the honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, can he confirm to for giving way, can he confirm to what extent he thinks it is? Because my understanding is spending is still going to increase, and can he still going to increase, and can he confirm if the cut, as he sees it, is even bigger band the quote that his party forced on the poorest in this country when in coalition?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this country when in coalition? I thank you for the comments, these are the voices of my these are the voices of my constituents what I am put here to represent, and we can talk about the coalition all you want, we can talk about the coalition all they want, but what we are talking about is the but what we are talking about is the here and now, but members of this House will be judged on what lobby they vote through later today. Because it is ironic that the government introduced a child government introduced a child poverty task force, and yet, through this bill, is actively undermining the work towards relieving child the work towards relieving child poverty.

Child poverty and estimates poverty. Child poverty and estimates that because of this bill, the following so-called mitigations from the government, 54,000 children will be forced into poverty. This is the be forced into poverty. This is the equivalent of 1,800 full classrooms. Madame Deputy Speaker, disabled people and all benefit claimants should be thoroughly consulted before legislation is rushed through. And if the government will not listen to the voices of my constituents and the constituents of other members in this House, then maybe they will listen to the voices of respective charities, like child Poverty Action Lab, Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust, Mind, they are all urging the government to change course.

This bill will likely reduce support for millions of disabled people, pushing at least 150,000 people into poverty. Food bank use will undoubtedly soar, worthlessness will grow, and the government will ironically be adding more to the unemployed figures it is working desperately to keep down. Despite the last-minute changes, the current is hurriedly introducing, the impact of adult social services, NHS of adult social services, NHS services, housing and support, and services, will be catastrophically stretched with many organisations facing breaking point. This government knows there are multiple ways to ease a country's finances, but is making a choice to penalised people who have neither the strength nor time to fight it, it is absolutely shameful.

Unless the government scraps the two-child limit and benefit cap, child poverty will be higher at the end of this Parliament than the start, is that really the legacy this Labour government wants to leave? Finally, Mr Speaker, Irish this government -- I urge this government to think of the story of Amy and Joan and reflect on the very real impact these changes will have on them and millions who share their story, the government must change course without delay. I am sure I speak for many in this chamber when I say we came into politics to fight for the most marginalised and vulnerable in our communities, and if this bill passes, we will all have let them down.

15:12

Dan Carden MP (Liverpool Walton, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to have just a couple of minutes to give my comments of minutes to give my comments today. I have been frustrated the ministers have continued to say that this bill is rooted in fairness. Its origins came about, as far as my recollection goes, a £5 million cut from Treasury and that has marred the whole situation moving forward, and the political mess that it has unleashed I think is a result of a lack of clear purpose.

I am incredibly proud of the work I have done and the campaigns I have been a part of, was disabled charities and I'm sorry they feel excluded from the process up until this point, but I am glad the Secretary of State has made commitments to work with those charities going forward. We say we want to win the support of working class communities, and yet the people I represent in the most deprived communities in our country do not think our government is on their side, they felt the winter cut was an attack on them, and they think taking money from disabled people who cannot wash themselves is plainly wrong.

I want welfare reform, I want the dignity and pride for work for as many of my constituents as possible. I want to say to the Secretary of State, I am reassured the 14,697 people in Liverpool Walton are currently on PIP will be protected. That the government will scrap reassessment for those with the most severe conditions, and has committed to spending £1 billion per year on health skills and support. But we are in a dire state. There are people for whom no amount of employment support will make a blind bit of difference.

There are a million young people not in work or training. Give them the chance to find purposeful dignified unionised work. If they are on benefits, get them doing something useful in the community for it, commit to employment. I know in the poorest areas, welfare is the lifeline for people up against the housing crisis, and ever rising bills for food, electricity and cost-of- living, but of course, it shouldn't be. Tackle the fundamental problems, impose rent caps in the poorest areas, drive out landlords extorting my constituents, and help my constituents by their homes.

I do not want the Labour Party to be the party of welfare. I want to be the party of transformation. It was founded to give workers a voice and take on their class enemies. We are in government with the levers of power in our hands. Show the British people we are on their side.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I wanted to speak of this debate because I wanted to try and get behind some of the headlines behind some of the challenges the some of the challenges the government benches face in getting to a settled view today, by looking

15:15

Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)

- -

to a settled view today, by looking back over the last years, the years we had in government, looking at some of the lessons we must draw from that experience that I believe are relevant for us to consider today. I will not be able to support the proposals. Not because I don't think some of them have significant merit, nor because I don't have the greatest respect for the Member for East Ham who has spent 31 years in this place and I believe will do all that is asked of him.

But because I do not think that this bill, that these changes are sufficiently ambitious to deal with the scale of ambitious to deal with the scale of I was in government for seven years and in the Treasury for most of that time. During the Covid pandemic, we had to make some pretty quick changes whilst the economy will shut down overnight. That involved changes to benefits, it involved standing up a fellow scheme very quickly, it involved bounce-back loans and many interventions to try and keep a public services going.

And it was at the core of some of the patterns of behavioural change that we now see in our benefits system in this country. I was looking at the numbers from my own constituency of Salisbury, which I recognise is a wonderful place but also quite wealthy place, not having some of the embedded challenges that exist in other parts of the country. When I look at the number of PIP claims in January 2019 it was 2065, in April 2025 it was 4211.

And I think the vast majority of my constituents, and I think the vast majority of people in this country cannot understand how there was a doubling of those numbers in such a short amount of time. And I fully respect the aspirations of the Secretary of State and her ministerial team to try to seek to address this because we have got to come to terms with what we can afford as a country. But I also hear sincerely remarks of the last honourable Member who spoke from Liverpool Walton, whose constituency is rather different to mine.

I think we are all united in this place, in that we want to look after the most vulnerable. I want to see those that are suffering and are disabled, and that need support from the state to receive that support in a timely way. But what I don't want to see is people written off permanently. And about 12 or 14 years ago in this House, we had a debate about mental health. Several members of Parliament stood up and they bravely talked about their own mental health challenges.

We then went on a journey to bring parity with steam to mental health and physical health in our benefits system. But I believe that pathway into assessment for those on a mental health has not worked. It write people off too easily. And it does not serve them well by leaving them in a place where they are, on an interim basis relying on the state. And we as a country cannot afford it. It is time to legislate for more resilience, resilience in our country and in those that receive benefits such that they can get out of that place of dependency because I don't think it is a happy place for anyone to be.

And so when I reflect on the changes today, I can see the hand of the Treasury. I see the fiscal imperative. I can see the public finances and what is now likely to happen in the autumn. Which will mean more tax rises. Some of the other side, that will be a necessary price worth paying, but what I would say is that we as a country lack the productive capacity to grow if we tax those that create jobs to a level that they just won't create jobs any further.

And we have got to come to terms with that profound reality because if we don't we are in a death spiral of the country. So I give credit to the government, on some of the steps they are making today. But for reasons that are different to many on that side of the house, I won't be able to support it because I don't think it is holistic, it goes far enough and deals with profound tragedy that has happened to our benefits system as a consequence of Covid and public finances.

I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I always appreciate his remarks in the Treasury Committee and the in the Treasury Committee and the chamber, he is a fair-minded colleague. I appreciate his remarks in yesterday's statement and the in yesterday's statement and the admission that the previous government's handling of the recovery from the pandemic was not what it should have been. Does he not recognise the right constituents not recognise the right constituents that I meet with you now rely on their PIP in order to get them to their places of work because of the their places of work because of the stripping away of council funding of bus routes, of social care and other bus routes, of social care and other services that were left in tatters by the previous government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to reciprocate with one sentiment, and she makes a critical point, some of which will be true in some circumstances, some be true in some circumstances, some of which won't. My point today to everyone in this house is, let's be real. Let's be honest and let's be true about the trajectory of growth true about the trajectory of growth in welfare spending in this country and be honest about what we can afford when we face a transformed landscape of threats to this landscape of threats to this country, calls for more spending on defence.

We have to address our defence. We have to address our priorities but also recognise that the most vulnerable need to continue the most vulnerable need to continue to support, but the system we have rings too many into dependency on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the state. And that is not right. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. We all know the famous quote, the

15:22

Rebecca Long Bailey MP (Salford, Labour)

- -

We all know the famous quote, the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. It is a litmus test really with morality and integrity of our country's values. Sadly, in recent years, United Nations has already twice reported on the conditions for disabled people in the UK, finding there were grave and systematic violations of human rights. Sadly, the Bill as it stands today will worsen the situation. Despite concessions, and even excluding existing claimants, brutal cuts will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable sick and disabled people into poverty.

Existing claimants will live in fear, then if the situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system. Disabled children will look to the future with trepidation, knowing that in adult hoods, the support that would have helped them live a full and fruitful life might not be there. I truly welcome the proposals to support those who could work with a little help. But according to the learning and work Institute, the numbers it will help our nominal, 31% to 3%.

This finding was echoed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies who concludes that we might expect increases in employment only in the tens of thousands. And the concessions made over the weekend, whilst welcome, they do create a two-tier system. The amount of support someone receives will now depend on when they made their claim. That is simply not fair. As those who need help find themselves needing this support through no fault of their own. It is clear that our punitive and broken welfare system needs reform, yes.

It drives disabled people into poverty, but proper consultations should have taken place with those most directly affected to build a system that truly nurtures. It didn't happen. The government should have published assessment on the impact of these updated proposals on the poverty of future claimants, those undergoing reassessments, and carers. They haven't. The government should have assessed the knock-on impact on local authorities, the NHS, the charity sector, and the scope for non-payment of household debt as people pushed into poverty, desperately seek help elsewhere.

They haven't. So we are being asked to vote on a bill today, to rush it through, without consultation, or knowing the full picture, and that can't be right. And if this is about this, about cost, I recognise the financial challenges facing the government, after 14 years of mismanagement and underinvestment by the last government, the sad thing is that there are alternatives. Introduce higher taxes on extreme wealth. Enter the stealth subsidies for banks, tax gambling fairly and properly.

The list of alternatives is endless. Because every single disability organisation is against this brutal bill. And if we ignore them, if we say that it is OK to treat one group of people as lesser than another, if we sate is OK to neglect the vulnerable, undermine their rights, dignity, and push them into poverty, then honestly, what does that say about the true measure of our society? So I would say to my frontbench colleagues, please, pull back from the brink now before it is too late and withdraw the spell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Terrified, anxious, angry, these are the words that Citizens Advice rural Cambridgeshire tell me they have heard most since these changes were heard most since these changes were proposed. I recently hosted an emergency forum that brought emergency forum that brought together those on the frontline, food banks, advice bureaus, food banks, advice bureaus, charities, and social organisations to discuss the impact of these changes. Every organisation said the

15:27

Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

changes. Every organisation said the same. The government's proposals, as they stood, should not go ahead. The government reached the same conclusion just yesterday, but this does nothing to reassure the they know what they are doing. Last minute changes may protect existing claimants but they will be creating a fundamentally unjust two-tier system. As Liberal Democrat colleagues have said, we understand that the system needs reform. We understand the concern about how high the welfare bill is currently.

But we also understand disabled people and their carers, which is a claim the government cannot possibly make for themselves. When it is yet to meaningfully consult those whose lives will be so significant the altered bites proposed changes. The figures that many have mentioned to help us to see the scale they don't tell the stories of the millions of real people whose lives will be changed by these reforms. Let me share the story if I may of a 23 year old autistic man on the " Switch now " learning program.

Through EHCP funding he received a full-time education, and would be supported to progress into employment by next summer. Switch now have a brilliant record of success, I welcome the opportunity to talk to the Secretary of State more about this work. However his PIP was unexpectedly cut a few months ago with little notice. From around £100 a week to just £20. And with that reduction he cannot afford to feed himself through the week. Let alone afford the transport to his program every day, or pay for the care he needs elsewhere.

He and many more people like him are doing exactly what the government claims it wants them to do. Working hard, completing training, and looking to the future where they can join the workforce with that support. They need that help. And hundreds of thousands like him will still face these barriers even under yesterday's changes. A 23 year old autistic person applying next year will be treated differently than one applying today. Not because their needs differ but because of political timing.

If the government now except changes are necessary, why are we voting before the Timms review concludes? Why implement a four point threshold on criteria that the government admits needs reviewing? The government's approach exposes a lack of compassion. How will it encourage the back to work culture that I know the Secretary of State does want? Madame Deputy Speaker, in future excuse me, every person who might have a future lifeline taken away by these reforms is a human.

And it is difficult to see the government is treating them that way. The Secretary of State yesterday dismissed concerns about the two-tier system, but this is patiently absurd. They are creating different levels of support for identical conditions. Purely based identical conditions. Purely based And disabled people should not be shouldering the burden of fixing public finances. They, and the disability groups that represent them, must be meaningfully consulted on any changes that we make. And so I will be voting against the changes and I would urge anyone who cares about disabled people and fundamental fairness to do the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been reported this week that it is the first anniversary of that it is the first anniversary of Labour Government and I have been waiting for that for a long time and it is the 10th anniversary that I it is the 10th anniversary that I have had of being the chair of two select committees, looking at the select committees, looking at the detail of the Treasury. I cannot detail of the Treasury. I cannot stand here and say I did not know that this Labour Government would be inheriting a difficult financial inheriting a difficult financial situation.

This is not just about money. It is a tragedy that too many

15:32

Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )

- -

15:40

Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister not in control, work and pensions secretary with work and pensions secretary with their hands tied behind your back and the Chancellor is scrambling to balance the books after months of reckless spending. The shoddy attempt at welfare reform is something the nation has learned over the last. Labour did not plan for government. There is £150 billion being spent on benefits for adults of working age with a staggering one in four claiming to have some form of disability. It is simply unsustainable.

The government had the prime opportunity in the first year in office, honeymoon period, to bring about long-term reform. And yet this half baked bill which has been hastily rewritten to appease the hard left on the benches behind does not even achieve the savings it was originally intended to and, worse still, it leaves us with a two-tier system from a two- tier Prime Minister. We all know why the Chancellor leads the savings and she will go down as the Chancellor who spends now, appease later.

She has blown taxpayer money on 25 pointless... Billions of pounds on GB Energy, a project so vague that no one seems to actually know what it does, while handing out inflation-busting pay rises to appease the unions. And now she cannot even clawback the savings to keep market confidence as the debt spirals. When the Work and Pensions Secretary tabled the bill, we gave her reasonable answer. Firstly, we needed the government to commit to welfare spending but as the screeching U-turn shows, they are incapable of tackling that.

The OBR forecasts an increase of £60 billion in annual bill for your costs by the end of this Parliament. -- Annual welfare costs. We asked for commitment to help people back to work but as highlighted yesterday, the Pathways to Work program will not be fully functional by the end of the Parliament total arguably be inconsequential, weak, woefully underfunded. I have to make progress. Thirdly, we needed a guarantee that taxes will not rise again in the budget. Let's be honest, the Chancellor only has one move left.

She is going to read the pockets of hard-working families which is something that they promise not to do. In fact, even today, we have heard rumours in the media that she is coming after people's ISAs. It's clear the government has lost credibility and I would say to my constituents in Leicestershire, I will always be there to support you and I will fight in your car not when the government comes back for more of your hard earned income to cover more of its own mistakes.

It's embarrassing failure from a government that should be at the height of its power. I cannot and will not support this bill.

15:43

Marsha De Cordova MP (Battersea, Labour)

- -

The Social Security system should be VAR as a safety net for those most in need and those who are vulnerable and disabled or have ill health but after 14 years of the party opposite, there are heaping holes and disabled people have suffered the most harm under the previous Conservative governments and the Liberal Democrats. We all know that many disabled people have suffered and it was the DWP themselves that highlighted, when they were doing process reviews, and they found that 2014 and 20, the opera 69 reviews and, for those who don't know, these are friend climates have committed suicide.

-- These are for people who have claimed that have inserted. The figure is higher according to the National Audit Office. A few weeks ago, a second request looked into the death of Jordy waiting and found -- Jodie Whiting and it was discovered that the failings of the DWP help lead to her death. Five years ago, when the pandemic it, two thirds of those who lost their lives either had a long-term disability or ill health. We also know there are blanket applications placed on many and there was evidence given on this issue and that was what was happening to those with a learning disability.

When the government was rightly putting in place and shall support with the furlough scheme and the £20 uplift of Universal Credit, it was disabled people on legacy benefits he did not attract the support. It is fair to say disabled people had been hammered. We are not Under the last Labour government, we signed that UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. Rather than supporting it and implementing it, we became the first nation state to be investigated further way we have treated disabled people due to welfare reforms.

Just last year when they did an update to that review, they said that there were no significant improvements. That was the record of the last Conservative government. We can take no lessons from them. Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill are there is an income replacement benefit. It is not an out of work benefit. It is an extra cost benefit. It is there to help those that have a disability and need that have a disability and need additional support.

I see about this bill that it does still include billions of pounds worth of cuts and this will have a significant and negative impact on tens of thousands of disabled people. We know that and we know that it will potentially create a two tier system indeed, possibly a three tier system. It is not me saying that. It's the experts, the many organisations that have been providing us with briefings and briefings from members of this House. By imposing that four-point descriptor, it means many will not be able to get support.

Somebody like myself, who has a sight loss, if they then lose their sight into your same comedy potentially will not get the support that is needed. That is unfair and it is unjust. It is vital that this government waits for the OBR's analysis on this. Indeed, these proposals were not done in consultation with disabled people. Indeed, they were not done in consultation with us as members of Parliament. And did, your own impact assessment was shown that up to 150,000 people will be affected by these changes and other analysis shows that will actually be more.

I want to urge the government, please, I absolutely 100% respect my right But let's have his review. Let us all feed into that review. But that review be co-produced with disabled people. Let us await for Sir Chailly people. Let us await for Sir Chailly I strongly believe that disabled people who want to work should be given the support that they need but we all know that there are far too many challenges in this space. I stand here as somebody who is living with a disability.

I stand here as somebody who has served as Shadow Minister for disabled people for many years. I know the lived experience of them. It is vital. It is vital they are at the centre of all of these reforms. We cannot rush through these plans and these changes because they will lead to a negative impact. We do not want to see this Labour government, this progressive Labour government that wants to bring about change break down barriers and create opportunities for people end up Too much of what we discussed today has not centred disabled people.

It has not centred the bill itself. It is not centred the actual changes that we are being asked to vote on today. We are being asked to vote on Universal Credit and the PIP payments bill. We've had some

15:51

Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)

- -

assurances from the government. Government made some announcements yesterday. Even if we take those into account, the principles of this bill are wrong. This is the wrong bill, at the wrong time, and it's bill, at the wrong time, and it's going to attack people and make their lives worse. This is getting money from disabled people. This is money from disabled people. This is driven entirely by the need to make cuts. This is not driven by the need to make the welfare system better. to make the welfare system better.

If, for example, the issue is that the PIP numbers are spiralling out of control, may be the government of control, may be the government could conceive that perhaps there are more disabled people than there were before. Perhaps, there are more were before. Perhaps, there are more people that need additional support. I would say that the numbers of people on the State Pension people on the State Pension increases at a larger number the decisive Leicester every year. Perhaps that is because there are more older people than there were in the previous year.

Perhaps it is because more people are struggling because more people are struggling to live their lives. Perhaps it's to live their lives. Perhaps it's because, as Scope says, of the additional cost of living with disability. If this is a Labour disability. If this is a Labour government, if this is a Labour government, if this is a Labour government that is on the left and cares about making people's lives better, if there principles are of the party that created the welfare state, that created the social security safety net, why are they now choosing to dismantle it? Why are they choosing to go for disabled people with these savings? When actually there's lots of other ways they could make savings full stop they could scrap their self-imposed fiscal rules.

They could choose to have a more progressive taxation system. They could choose to levy this £2 billion or £5 million, however much it is today, of savings on someone other than those people who are already struggling. Who are already living in a world that is made for neuro- typical people, that is made for people who are healthy, who are already struggling with the cost of having to heat their homes, having to buy special food. That's what PIP is used for. It's used to help people get to work when they are struggling to get to work.

They can't walk the 40 minute walk to work in the way that people who are able-bodied can. They can't sit at home and just put the heating off because they need a consistent level of temperature in order to manage their chronic pain. This is taking money away from those people in the future who have exactly the same conditions as those people who are eligible now. And it's purely on the basis of cost. This is absolutely not about reforming the welfare system.

Yesterday, the Minister stood up to me at actuary -- and answered me, I do not expect the honourable member to have read every line of our manifesto. Reforming the benefit system was not in the manifesto. It said " Review Universal Credit". Inside look into employment support. The government is going to have a hell of a time when they get this through to the Lords. This was not in the Labour Party manifesto. If you're going to reform the welfare system, what you would do is look at the issues there are as the Timms review is looking at.

To be fair, I have not got a huge amount of trust in the Timms review, given that the Minister said to me the day before Pathways to Work was published that she would be reassured and welcome the proposals and Pathways to Work. Welcomed the fact that you've got to get four points in one of the components of the PIP payments in order to be eligible. The Minister honestly thought I would welcome that on behalf of disabled people up and down the United Kingdom. That I would welcome that people would have their payments are taken away that they live on, they use this money in order to be able to live.

As I said, this is the UK government is supposed to be a Labour government making these changes. To talk about a couple of the specific matters that there are in the bill. Number one, the issues in the Pathways to Work in relation to each discovery should continue to apply. They have not been fixed. There is nothing in this fudge of a compromise that changes that. There is nothing that says being disabled, being under 22, you might not have the same cost as someone over the age of 25.

It is a two tier system that has wrong is being put in place. -- It is a two tier system being put in place. There is major issues with this. It was very clear that the Cabinet Secretary does not know what it says in the bill. The bill says that the description has to apply at all times. In order for them to be classed as that severe conditions criteria. It has to apply at all times. If 95% of the time I cannot do something, 5% of the time I can, I will not be considered to have a severe condition.

Unless the government promises to make changes to this, the severe conditions criteria will not apply to hardly anybody. People with Parkinson's, people with ME, people with MS who have got recurring or emitting conditions will really struggle to claim this benefit. The government needs to re-prioritise, needs to rethink and listen to disabled people and the impact this is going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have on their lives. I am going to reduce the time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am going to reduce the time limit to five minutes after the next speaker but have no plans to reduce it further than that. Members will it further than that. Members will be able to see just how many are standing. This debate is scheduled to finish at seven. It means that many will be disappointed out of the 35.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

35. I wish that we were not here today. We don't need to be here today. There is nothing special or magical about this Tuesday. Nothing

15:56

Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)

- -

magical about this Tuesday. Nothing at all. The deadline that we have been given is a deadline, I'm afraid, to solve a political problem and that's why so many of us on the Labour benches have been pleading with the frontbench to pull this bill today, go back to the drawing board, and work in partnership with disabled people and others, including the Timms review, to ensure that we do get a welfare system that works for disabled people and others. And there is no need to run it through today other than to save political face.

There is no need to run it through next There is no reason why disabled people cannot give evidence at committee. There is no need to do that at all. It should be about solving this problem. Not solving a political problem. Were being asked today to vote on the principles of the bill, so I think all Honourable members on the site should be very clear about what the principles of the bill are. It's on the face of the bill. It says good district -- to restrict disability payments.

-- To restrict eligibility for PIP payments. I think of disabled people who have come to my constituency advice surgeries. I think of disabled people who had hope in their hearts a year ago when the Labour government was elected after Labour government was elected after 14 years. And let's be clear, this was not in our manifesto. The Labour Party as a whole has not approved this. In Spain rushed through. I think we need to be clear as well that if this were a free vote, that it would be hard to find many Labour it would be hard to find many Labour MPs at all who will vote for it.

As my Honourable friend said, this is a matter of conscience. We are not comparing the bill as the government intended with the bill, as was promised. What we should be comparing is the situation of disabled people across the country as it is now in the situation which will come to pass if this bill is passed. And this bill, which was brought, whatever the narrative, to save billions of pounds, still with these concessions, cut the ends of pounds from disability support. Now government and the Labour government should seek to balance the books on the backs of disabled.

That's not what any of us in the Labour family, left centre or right of the party, came into politics to do. And that is why so many people are so uneasy about this. My Honourable friend, the member for South Shields, spoke very clearly earlier. I would urge all colleagues to listen very carefully to what she said because the truth is this matter does not end when the voting closes tonight. This matter will come back to haunt Labour MPs in their constituency surgeries Friday after Friday after Friday, up to and including the day of the next general election.

And people ask why on earth did you vote for these cuts or why on earth did you sit on your hands and not do that? I think it is really notable that hundred 38 disabled people's organisations are pleading with Labour MPs to vote for the honourable member for York Central 's recent amendment and vote against this bill -- 138. 128 disabled people's organisations. I know that the whips can make compelling arguments. I know the frontbench can make compelling arguments. But for me the real compelling argument has been made from outside this chamber from 138 disabled people's organisations.

It was very telling that the Secretary of State when asked yesterday by my Honourable friend from Liverpool, to name one disabled person or organisation that supports this disability benefit cuts bill, could not name one, because there isn't one. I honestly believe that any Labour MP who votes for this bill tonight or sit on their hands, I think that a vote will hang like an albatross around their necks. I understand that some colleagues will feel like they have to vote for disability benefit cuts out of party loyalty but there's also other types of loyalty in addition to that.

Loyalty to our conscience, loyalty to our party bus value -- party's values., loyalty to those who are struggling and To see I I would I would urge I would urge MPs I would urge MPs to I would urge MPs to give I would urge MPs to give disabled people what they have been denied for two languages dignity, respect, and advice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin not with statistics or slogans about the statistics or slogans about the reality of just one life, a constituent of mine, Sarah from Essex who has a spinal cord injury Essex who has a spinal cord injury and is a field to your user. This is what her PIP makes possible. -- what her PIP makes possible. -- Wheelchair user. It pays for underwear that does not take into her skin, wedge pillows for her legs, grabbers to pick things up legs, grabbers to pick things up from the floor and the second from the floor and the second wheelchair to keep up the stairs.

It allows her to buy heated blankets allows her to buy heated blankets for the cold weather because it makes her pain worse. It helps with specialist clothes from Norway to

16:02

Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:08

Cat Smith MP (Lancaster and Wyre, Labour)

- -

pushed through. By moving from the second reading to the third reading in eight days, it does not give members of the House the time to scrutinise it and it did us the opportunity to have it in committee in the House and that the nice people who are disabled and the organisation is the time to examine the legislation and ensure it is the best legislature and can be. I think that we would all agree that the current system is broken.

I've been a constituency MP for 10 years and have lost count of the number of times I have spoken to constituents failed by the current system. The need for reform is clear and it is clear we have to do it in coproduction with disabled people. I come at this from the point of view of one of my closest friend who is a disability rights activist. She taught me many things. She taught me that having disability is no barrier to having a full and exciting night and never to dance too close to someone in a wheelchair on a someone in a wheelchair on a dancefloor.

She taught me 'nothing about us without us' and those are the values that are important in the legislation today. When we legislate for disabled people without involving them, we make bad legislation and we make poor legislation and I mean that in many senses because this bill which puts hundred 50,000 disabled people into poverty and as someone who cares deeply about reducing poverty, it's not something that I can do. PIP is what enables many of my disabled constituents to go to work in the first place and the threats that we see to it actually threaten the ability to access work and a from constituents concerned about the fact that it is a passport benefit for claiming things like carers allowance and they are seeking reassurance from the Frontbench.

Most people would agree that eligibility for benefits should be determined with need and the conversations we've had have led me to think that is not shared as a value because we will see future climates being judged differently to those from today and that means that in two years, but I'm sat in my surgery and healing from a constituent struggling to access PIP, I will be asked about how I voted today and I will be asked to explain why because they are diagnosis or accident happened later than someone else with the same disability that one is eligible and against your party whip and I joined the Labour Party 21 years ago and that has now been more than half of my life and I joined because I believe in social justice and equality and because people like me constituent taught me it's important to stand up for social justice and equality and I joined a party that was reducing child poverty and introducing things like the Disability Discrimination Act and making things better for disabled people and that has not changed.

These are still my values today and that is why I will vote for the recent amendment of my honourable friend and I will do so because it is consistent with my values as a Labour MP and the mantra that I was taught by my constituent, nothing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about us without us. This is a crucial moment for a

16:13

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a crucial moment for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a crucial moment for a lot of people in this country. This bill did not come from the demands of the disabled community. It did not come from an understanding of not come from an understanding of the inequality and injustice in society but the whole origin was the demand to save £5 billion and that was wanted by the Defence Secretary for more armaments and other departments are no doubt making demands and so the whole thing has been driven from a bad source at the beginning and it would be better at the government simply withdrew the bill altogether and a load the review to take place and look at the issues of poverty facing people with disabilities and the issues of the huge levels of stress that many face, such as children with SEND in schools that are not met and housing overcrowding when there are children with autism or other specialties that cannot be located in decent - sized housing.

There is a whole area of discrimination against people before forms of disability that could and should be addressed and as the honourable member pointed it, it was a previous labour government that introduced the disability discrimination legislation that difference and it was also a labour MP that introduced the chronic sickness act which made a difference to a number of people's lives. What has happened that the tradition has been stood on its head and we have a piece of legislation that was going to take the personal Independence payments away from a large number of people and, instead, after the failed rebellion by some Labour MPs, the bill has changed to say it will only be future generations denied access to the payments that they absolutely deserve and so you look to situation in the future of where the able BCD at levels of poverty, much worse than no, among every family suffering with a level of disability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's entitled to his opinion regarding this legislation and I regarding this legislation and I wonder if you would concede that voting against this legislation also means voting against the extra money in cash terms for those on Universal Credit and that the fisherman is Credit and that the fisherman is denying those people the ability to try work and voting against the legislation means not having the legislation means not having the money to invest in the skills of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money to invest in the skills of Voting against this bill will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voting against this bill will be a strong message to the community. a strong message to the community. He knows full well that he will have to face people in his own advice to face people in his own advice bureau later on who are going to be saying, why can't I get PIP payments saying, why can't I get PIP payments when my brother, my sister, my neighbour still gets it because they got it before the cut-off date? He got it before the cut-off date? He knows full well the anomaly he is voting for presumably this evening.

Maybe he cares to reflect on that. At the present time, the levels of At the present time, the levels of poverty among the disabled community are absolutely huge. The cost on any family according to Scope is around £1000 per month for a family with levels of disability. That is what will be removed by this piece of legislation going through. So, what I would urge and ask is that Labour MPs, because it is in their hands at the present time, reflect on what was said in the Labour manifesto last time, what was said in previous Labour manifestoes, what the history of the Labour Party is in respect of disability, and don't turn that history on its head by deliberately impoverishing the next generation.

Are we to be a society, as a welfare state with the universality of benefits, and support for people whatever they are and whatever their needs are, because that is what the whole traditional tradition of the welfare state is. Or in 10 or 15 years time we will be supporting charities trying to raise money for people in desperate need because they have a disability through no fault of their own. We will move into a two tier benefit system were those that got PIP before 2026 will those that got PIP before 2026 will And I simply say this is a ridiculous situation that the Secretary of State and the government has put us in, has put the House in, and the only sensible thing to do would be to withdraw the bill now, allow the review to take place and recognise the needs of all people with disabilities.

If it does cost us more money, so be it. As a society, are we content with not having a wealth tax, with these massive levels of inequality within our society, and at the same time accepting that those with disabilities live economically much poorer lives because of the system we have? Are function here as members of Parliament is to recognise a problem, be prepared to grasp that nettle, and above all, change it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In March 2020, when the Conservative government looked like Conservative government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a strategy centring on herd immunity, I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I toddler and what might happen if I got coronavirus meant I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price and they would pay an enormous price and they did.

Almost 60% of Covid-related did. Almost 60% of Covid-related deaths were disabled people in that first way. I vowed then that I would do all I could to create a country

16:19

Dr Marie Tidball MP (Penistone and Stocksbridge, Labour)

- -

which treats disabled people with dignity and respect. The Social Security system was broken by the conservative legacy of austerity. And their monumental mishandling of the Covid pandemic. I am now one of the only visible physically disabled members of Parliament. I'm proud that our manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people and the principle of working with disabled people to ensure our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. My community has nurtured me growing up -- my communities nurtured me growing up, and they taught me the values of fairness, community and equality.

It is with a broken heart that I will be voting against this bill today. As a matter of conscience, I need my constituents to know I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as currently drafted on the face of the bill before us today. Since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with the government at the very highest level to change their proposals as set out in this bill. I've made it clear I could not support the proposals on PIP. PIP is a nonwork benefit -- in work benefit.

It ensures that people can live independently. Low-level support like PIP helps people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings. The concessions that government have now announced a significant, including that all recipients of PIP who currently receive it will continue to do so. Well this will come as an easy -- relief to my 6000 constituents who received PIP, there are still 4 million disabled people in poverty in the UK. Proposed changes at committee stage are still currently projected to about 150,000 people into poverty.

I cannot accept this. Nor a proposed point system undercurrent descriptors which would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their undercover prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which he agree with me that one of the issues with the point system is it does not take into account is it does not take into account gender at the moment, does not understand that there are different issues for women and the physical issues for women and the physical things that our bodies face during the assessment process, and that any changes that we do to the point system must include the gender reference?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reference? As a disabled woman, I know the added burden of menstruation, and other health conditions on other health conditions on disability. Research shows that incentive-based approaches far outweigh sanctions in getting outweigh sanctions in getting disabled people into employment. If this bill gets to report stage, I will be looking for further will be looking for further reassurances that the detail will fulfil Labour's manifesto commit to disabled people and to see three disabled people and to see three things from government embedded in its amendments.

First, the Timms its amendments. First, the Timms review must not be performative. The review must not be performative. The government must not make the same mistake twice. Coproduction must be meaningful. The social model of disability must be central to this, removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Disabled people's voices should be at the heart of decision- making about our lives. The sequencing of the Timms review and decisions about future recipients needs to change. Second, therefore, the government must consult with disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November from November 2026.

The future claimants -- on future claimants committee mitigate risk of discrimination and poverty for those future recipients with similar disabilities, to current claimants producing impact assessment based on this. The government may need or be willing to reconsider savings as a result of this process in order to ensure that it fulfils the outcomes of its finding. Thirdly, growth must mean inclusive growth. And implementing inclusive growth. And implementing the program code needs to be a clear target for closing the employment.

In the sector by sector strategy for closing that gap. The Conservatives left us with a beautiful employment gap and pay gap for disabled people. As the Tories vote against this bill today, I say loudly do not read this as a mark of solidarity for disabled people. But with them hanging their heads in shame, acknowledging their legacy of 14 years of failure to 16 million disabled people across our country. I am proud that our Labour government has done much already to promote the rights of workers, and opportunities for disabled people.

This Labour government now has an opportunity to build on the positive aspects of its Pathways to Work green paper, to bring in a new era of policy-making for disabled people, which takes a laser focus enclosing this employment gap. The disability sector believes that this employment gap can be reduced by 14%, generating £17.2 billion for the Exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. There is an alternative approach. In line with a ministry statement, that reform should be implemented with labour values of fairness.

Reset requires a shift to enable us to fulfil our potential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't go on without putting on record my admiration for the record my admiration for the And her impassioned speech. I hope And her impassioned speech. I hope all members listen to her speech very carefully indeed. I want to continue on a personal note. My dad continue on a personal note. My dad is currently on PIP payments. A proud scaffolder all of his life, trust me when I say he is not happy trust me when I say he is not happy to be sat at home.

He would much rather be contributing to society. His hips are giving up on him and the NHS waiting lists are so long that he has been told he has no choice but to stay at home. Now, home life is difficult. He doesn't home life is difficult. He doesn't score 4 points on any particular measure but he cannot move around like he used to. Period support to

16:26

Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

- -

like he used to. Period support to manage the basics. PIP does not solve everything but it does give him dignity and independence to help live his life while he waits for live his life while he waits for treatment. Cutting his entirely -- entire benefits won't incentivise him to go back to work. He doesn't need incentives, he needs treatment. I understand that my dad will no longer lose out but the next person like him well. And the Secretary of State earlier talked about a better tomorrow but her proposals mean discounting the value of tomorrow's disabled saying that they are less worthy of support.

It's for that reason that I still cannot support this bill. Now, let me be clear. I agree that the welfare bill is too high. We have to look at why that is. It's not because we have suddenly become a workshy nation. It's because we have become less well. If the government were serious about reducing the welfare bill, they would focus solely on fixing the root causes of chronic ill- health, like a broken social her -- social care system and a mental health crisis among young people.

And while the bill does some good And while the bill does some good The reasons why people out of work, that is not its primary driver. The motivation for this bill was made clear in its timing. Just before the transfer prospects ring statement with the core savings not from helping people back into work but through titling eligibility criteria for disability benefit. It removes Carer's Allowance from thousands of unpaid carers, people who provide tireless, often invisible care that props up our NHS and social care system.

Taking away their support is not just an just, but it's economically reckless. Let's be honest about the consequences. The government's own impact assessment says that this bill pushes hundreds of thousands of people into poverty by 2029. How can anyone in this place look at those figures and truly believe that the government is making these reforms to help people, rather than balance the books? Now, I appreciate that some will feel that this is a fair compromise. It may be in political theory but in practice, it remains unsupported by disability groups and unsupported by the public.

The majority of the country see this bill for what it is, and unfair cost-cutting exercise for this is not reform, its retreat. Retreat from compassion, from evidence and from the values that should underpin our welfare state. And I believe there is a better way, a fairer way, that supports people into work by investing in healthcare, not punishing them from -- for being ill. That allows disabled people to live independently, instead of stripping them of their support. One that values carers as opposed to treating them like an afterthought.

One that doesn't arbitrarily divide between it today's disabled and tomorrow's. This is why I will vote against this bill. We believe that reform must be fair, sustainable and rooted in dignity. My dad wants to work, he is not looking for a handout, he wants to be well again. I believe there are many more like him and this bill will make their futures worse. I urge members to think carefully about the legacy of tonight's food. Vote for compassion, vote for fairness and vote against this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a simple test of any progressive society. How we support people when they are most in need. The test is simple but the answer is The test is simple but the answer is anything but. Need is not uniform. The duty of government is to create a safety net. One that is wide a safety net. One that is wide enough to break people's fault but not so wide that they can never escape it. We have a consensus in escape it. We have a consensus in this house that the system is failing.

I think people are right to failing. I think people are right to ask how can we fix this? Before we answer that, it's important to know where we are now and how we got where we are now and how we got here. So where are we now? We should look at the situation when Labour look at the situation when Labour came into power less then one year ago. NHS waiting lists at record highs. 3 million shout out of work

16:30

Matthew Patrick MP (Wirral West, Labour)

- -

highs. 3 million shout out of work through ill health. Universal Credit allowance at a 40 year loan. Young people written off with one in eight not in work, education or training. And a mental health crisis with over 1 million people in desperate need of support. The party opposite is responsible for this and we are responsible for fixing it. They failed with their welfare reforms. If you are disabled and want to work, the status quo put up too many barriers.

The disability employment gap of 28% is far too high. Behind that statistics are individuals who have failed. There filled by a system. They could get the benefits the good work brings but there denied that opportunity. It is a dead end system that counts people out rather than helping them out. As more people come into that system, that is more people locked into the same damaging status quo. Every day As a constituents said to me last week, many on PIP are in work.

She is right to point that out but over 80% of people on PIP are not in work and some of them will never be able to work and will have an irreversible health condition that does not allow it and they will have been endlessly reassessed and that is unnecessary and cruel. Others are telling the government that they want to work and we have a duty to act, to give them equal choices at equal chances, which they had been denied for too long and doing nothing is not an option.

We have been doing that since 2019 and at that rate, we will have more than doubled the number of PIP from 2 million to more than 4 million in a million to more than 4 million in a decade. How did we get there? The statistics are not just data points but tell me why the story of the claim the Tories took the country down and it is a story familiar to many of us with councils cut to the bone and failed and health and social services being stripped.

The cost of living crisis families to breaking point and this is just the backdrop and the party opposite presiding over multiple failed welfare changes and the scrap program which help to unlock support to get people into work and shut down the avenue to help disabled people get on at work and left access to work and chaos, meaning many people missed out on vital many people missed out on vital funds and the city that was torn to shreds by the system stacked against thought that it should be empowering.

Is it any wonder that people worry when they hear about reform? This must be fixed and it requires deep and lasting change for the country. Direct support and wider reforms and that is the jury that we started when people voted us in last year. More money for the NHS, waiting times cut, a 10 year plan coming, mental health services in Bristol, breakfast clubs, free school lunches to help future generations and employers part of the solution with the Employment Rights Bill giving people the confidence they will be supported in good work.

More homes, better quality homes, and nearly 3 million more qualifying for the discount for warm homes next year. We cannot allow this information to enter the debate. It will only scare those who are most in need and so, let's be clear, the reforms have never been about taking support away from those who need it most. They will never again suffer the indignity and anxiety of needless reassessment. The government is taking action to support disabled people with targeted help and increasing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled facilities Grant. I thank my honourable friend for a giving way and he talked a giving way and he talked eloquently about the legacy left by the Conservative government but does the Conservative government but does he agree that in Scotland we need two Labour governments working together because the situation in Scotland, I'm sorry, and people Scotland, I'm sorry, and people might not want to hear it but one in six Scottish people are languishing on the waiting list as a result of on the waiting list as a result of the decisions of the Scottish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. My honourable friend is totally right and one in eight young people right and one in eight young people are not in employment, education or training and it is one in six in Scotland and they should be ashamed of their record. People who receive of their record. People who receive support but have a job offer should know they have the opportunity to be taken with both hands and no fear because if it does not work, for whatever reason, the same support whatever reason, the same support will be there for them and this removes a barrier for many and increasing the standard rate of universal credit is committed £1 universal credit is committed £1 billion to the Pathways to Work funding.

We want to restore dignity to a system that has become a burden to those it should serve and we must protect those who cannot work, empower those who can, restore dignity to everyone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill is morally indefensible. From the outset, we must be honest about what it must be honest about what it represents. It is not reform but a calculated assault on some of the most marginalised people in society, people with disabilities, complex mental health conditions, people mental health conditions, people already struggling under the weight of neglect. It continues the pattern of neglect. It continues the pattern that we have seen too many times, with cuts dressed up as reform and cruelty wrapped in the language of

16:36

Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)

- -

cruelty wrapped in the language of efficiency and the assessment of the department confirms the truth, 150,000 pushed into poverty and approximately 20,000 of them are children of the bill passes and that will be the outcome and the government ignores it and it targets was the fluctuating invisible mental health conditions, the very people who are already facing systemic injustice and it imposes functional disruptors which do not reflect the values that people face and punish people, not for being unwilling to work for not fitting neatly into bureaucratic box ticking and, worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation or engagement with those who live in this reality every day.

This government is making policy about the Sybill people without them and that is not just neglect but it is offensive. The evidence is clear. The government is looking to make savings by depriving thousands of the means to live and telling them that the planned changes will empower them. According to research by the Joseph Rowntree foundation, one in five people in receipt of PIP are in paid employment and working to the limits that their condition allows and of those, 60% will lose PIP.

These people are already in rock. What more does the government want? Why is it punishing them? In my constituency, 9000 people rely on the vital payment. Nearly 4000 will lose out entirely including the people currently in work. What does the government saying to constituency will lose income prior to this? What does it say to the millions of families that have got to tighten pursestrings to pay for the basic needs? And worse still, just one year ago, when the government came to power, people are promised change and the Prime Minister said on the campaign trail that those with the broadest shoulders should be paying their fair share but once you're in, we have seen the government take from the most in need, telling disabled people that they are not impaired enough to earn state support and this is nothing short of shameful and if it passes, the bill will be a national disgrace and the welfare state was built on the principle of solidarity, dignity, security.

This bill will trample on those values, stripping away independence and forcing people into deeper hardship, leaving many with no safety net at all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I make my point that the honourable gentleman is not going to honourable gentleman is not going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way and that is up to him.. These changes are needed to preserve the welfare state which was built on the idea that everyone, no built on the idea that everyone, no matter what would receive state support for things that were out of your control and passing the bill will not preserve the welfare state will not preserve the welfare state dismantle it and I urge every member dismantle it and I urge every member of this House to reject the bill. We can and must do better than this and the people that we represent deserve far better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

far better. I begin by welcoming the positive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I begin by welcoming the positive steps the department has set out in the green paper on supporting people into work. The right to try work into work. The right to try work without the fear of having to go through the assessment for benefits does not work and reforming and does not work and reforming and modernising the access to work system, disability gap reporting, disability employment gap reporting, disability employment gap reporting, and ensuring everyone has access to a supportive work plan.

And ensuring assessments are recorded as standard, something that I know people are desperately trying out for. And assuring people with long- term lifelong conditions do not need to be reassessed when we know their condition is unlikely to ever improve. I also welcome many concessions the government has made over the last week and bringing forward employment support and protection is for current payments going forward and the need for coproduction moving forward. However, I continue to have some concerns which I believe must be addressed.

We need the Timms review to report before the new system is to report before the new system is rolled out and on the coproduction, I want to start by saying that this should have happened before we got should have happened before we got to the debate today. From my time as to the debate today. From my time as a shadow minister for disabled people, I love it when you work with disabled people and those organisations from the start, produce better policy.

There is so produce better policy. There is so much talent out there. Like many of us in the chamber, the Sybill people and their organisations want reform and their organisations want reform of the benefit system but uniforms set out in the bill are not what set out in the bill are not what they want or need. We should have been working with them on this, right from the start.

16:42

Vicky Foxcroft MP (Lewisham North, Labour)

- -

I thank the vulnerability for her remarks. I wonder if she would agree that as well as engagement with the Sybill people themselves and the Sybill groups, it's important that the Timms review engages with family carers, because they are caring for people with disability and also because they are implicated through the carers allowance being linked to PIP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree. It must make sure it has the right engagement and consultation with everybody and the consultation with everybody and the must be co-produced with the experts must be co-produced with the experts by experience. I want to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what we mean by coproduction. The principle of coproduction is rooted principle of coproduction is rooted in the US civil rights movement and in the US civil rights movement and the level of participation developed in 1969.

And it should be in place from the start of the process and all the information should be made available to everyone and a plan available to everyone and a plan should be agreed and there must be the ability to bring in experts and these experts should be paid for because of their contribution and because of their contribution and treated as value partners. We should be empowering and upscaling those be empowering and upscaling those involved and I hope that it goes without saying or the information should be available and accessible.

should be available and accessible. And partners need to be able to talk And partners need to be able to talk to disabled organisation. The focus of making the changes should not be on making cuts but on getting it right. And getting it right means everything needs to be in the scope of the review. Not just the ability within limited and predetermined parameters and the coproduction must take place before any changes to the current assessment criteria are proposed.

If it means closing, pausing to ensure we get it right,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then that is what we must do. I have great respect for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have great respect for the experience and intelligence of the ministers behind the bill. What we ministers behind the bill. What we have in front of the city is no more have in front of the city is no more than a clumsy salvage operation. How did we end up here? The government says the cost is spiralling out of control and that there is no option control and that there is no option but to have cuts but the premise is but to have cuts but the premise is too simplistic and the overall cost as a percentage of GDP has not as a percentage of GDP has not changed much and that is because everything the government tries to cut the benefit, another rises in its place to compensate.

Before any changes were proposed, this should changes were proposed, this should have been a serious analysis of what is driving this. Ministers pay

16:45

John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

is driving this. Ministers pay little attempt to understand why. It is a carve on a spreadsheet that needs to be looked at. We are left with the assumption that the government believes that hundreds of thousands of people are currently receiving benefits that they don't need and don't deserve. There are lots of factors driving the increase and some of them are involved in Many of those extra claimants are the result of the rise in retirement age.

The government has shunted one payment, pension costs, into another, PIP. Another is people who are unable to access healthcare. And most of all, it's the horrendous cost of living rises meaning people cannot get my any more. Live cannot get my any more. Live customer when you are disabled. Besides the impact on daily living, many treatments are not available on the NHS. Overall, there are three tell-tale signs that what we are looking at is a botched compromise. We have the new four point role for PIP assessments.

Any question that scores one, two, or three won't make any difference to the outcome. If you need help going to the toilet, incredibly, you will not qualify for help. The point system has been trained up not because anyone thinks it is a good way to assess hardship but to hit an arbitrary cost saving. Secondly, we have the incomprehensible proposal to change PIP assessments next year without waiting for the outcome of the Timms review. I quote from the commission on Social Security who say " This is a classic example of what happens when policymakers do not work with those whose lives are profoundly affected by current policy." I don't know how anyone can stand over this as a credible policy.

Even on the most optimistic forecast, only a most optimistic forecast, only a relatively small minority of current claimants will be able to find jobs and no account at all has been taken of regional employment blackspots. For every disabled person that can be helped back into were, there will be others moving in the opposite direction. That's because about one third of ME and MS officers -- sufferers who are currently in work will be unable to continue as a result of losing PIP result -- support.

We are not hundred 50 people Robert we have 100 to 3000 people Robert we have 100 to 3000 people -- we have 150,000 people... I quote. For me, this is a moral issue because I believe that there is a better future for people in so many parts of the country. It is absolutely not cruel. It might have been a moral mission, but it's not a moral outcome. This is not compassionate, as the Secretary of State has claimed. It is harsher and more chaotic.

This bill can no longer be considered a serious attempt at welfare reform. It's a scheme to get us through the next 24 hours. I urge all members to vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against it. I never expected to be standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I never expected to be standing here opposing a Labour government legislation that intends to impose changes on disability benefits that will affect 150,000 people. The government's own assessment says government's own assessment says that these concessions mean there will be a negligible impact on will be a negligible impact on pensioner and child poverty. I don't know when we became so matter-of- fact about the implications of

16:49

Clive Efford MP (Eltham and Chislehurst, Labour)

- -

17:00

his own government's effort when Tory cuts put millions of people into poverty. You will be voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against the biggest uplift in the UC standard allowance. I will take no lectures from somebody who supported council tax arising 10% across the Bradford arising 10% across the Bradford district, affecting many of those in the Bradford district who will be the Bradford district who will be affected by the changes in PIP. This affected by the changes in PIP. This is not reform, it is not radical and it is not good policy-making. Many on the benches opposite now it. And on the benches opposite now it.

And we can, as a party, as a government on the opposite benches do better. I will not be supporting this bill will not be supporting this bill Is important. It has an impact on the lives of families across the country and for the last 10 years I've seen many constituents trapped in poverty with the constant fear and insecurity that the current system brings. We should not be in a position in which the government is scrabbling at the last minute to scrabbling at the last minute to make changes to improve a set of proposals that were not good enough when the bill was tabled.

We should

17:03

Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)

- -

not be here because while there are many positive measures, the government has heard evidence of the government has heard evidence of the extent of concerns from members since April. These concerns have been patiently and respectfully expressed in private and in public. It appears that for a long time the extent of the concerns has been ignored, until it became clear that ignored, until it became clear that the government might lose the vote. We are reaching for solutions at the final hour that should have been final hour that should have been better considered over a longer period of time and that is part of a period of time and that is part of a response to the back.

I regret the situation the and ISIL to the situation the and ISIL to the ministers that, whatever happens today or in coming days, MPs, who today or in coming days, MPs, who have a primary duty to constituents and those who rely on services that rely and government, it has to rely and government, it has to change and it has to change profoundly. On the substance of where we are now with the bill I welcome the substantial changes which were agreed last week to which which were agreed last week to which which were agreed last week to which Climates will alleviate the anxiety that many constituents have been experiencing for months and they will see income drop without any change in their condition are additional support at the commitment to coproduce the review with disabled people is a significant and very welcome commit.

I call before we get to the third routing that government will put the commitment on the face of the bill and more details will be provided about how production will be done so disabled people and organisations can have confidence that they will be true partners in the process and that the engagement will be properly resourced. The commit to bring forward employment support is helpful. The last Labour government sought to address unemployment and the size of the welfare bill and did so by front leading the employment and health support and it should have been part of the plan from the start, by addressing barriers to employment which many disabled people face and that is the best way to address the challenges that the government is seeking to tackle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In relation to the point I read employment support, I know many members concerned it would not be members concerned it would not be quick enough but in my constituency we already have it million pounds of we already have it million pounds of funding from the trailblazing funding from the trailblazing programme to get Britain working. Does she welcomed the new proposals include £1.3 billion in investment in the program and that they help will be available to every disabled person who wants a job in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. I know how effective that support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know how effective that support can and will be but we have yet to see it bed in and I have the see it bed in and I have the concerns that have not addressed. I'm concerned about the impact of the bill on young people in the bill on young people in particular and we need further detail on the support that will be detail on the support that will be provided to people aged 16-22, particularly for mental health, to enable them to participate in the enable them to participate in the enable them to participate in the place.

And for the concern has not been addressed and they want to press the Minister on it today and it's the lack of alignment between conclusion and implementation of the conclusion and implementation of the review and implementation and raising of the threshold for PIP to four points. I believe the Secretary of State makes a movement in this point in her speech on opening the debate but so far it is not clear that we are avoiding the situation in which there will be a category of new climates and people who become disabled after November 2036 but before the implementation of the Timms review and they will face an increased threshold without any of the things that come from the revised process which are codesigned with disabled people.

It would be unfair and inequitable and I believe it makes the policy incoherent and depicting of the points on the face of the bill incoherent. The system must align with the implementation of the new system with the review process and it must be codesigned with disabled people that define it. I believe the government must also set out between today and the next debate, the further detail on the assessment. It is an unacceptable consequence that the bill will plunge 150,000 people into poverty. If the government is confident the mitigations it is making anti- additional support mean this will not be the case, it must provide evidence to the South that is credible so we can believe that it will not be the case because, at the moment, we have to face judgements on the evidence that is in front of us and the evidence says that us and the evidence says that 150,000 people's lives will be made worse as a consequence of the bill.

It is one of the most regrettable aspects of the process that it has harmed the trust and confidence of disabled people. The full alignment of the review with the introduction of the new system is an essential requirement of beginning to rebuild the trust and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says from the dispatch box.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This cruel mistake of a bill must fall today. I will be putting with my colleagues to stop the second reading and supporting the reading and supporting the amendment. These proposals are a mess and the timetable is breakneck mess and the timetable is breakneck and other honourable members have said it right, it is a spreadsheet. said it right, it is a spreadsheet. The rush to get it through before the Budget is a dead giveaway that the Budget is a dead giveaway that this is about making cuts, not making improvements and the actions the government have taken do not respect the sick and disabled people and where before any changes to Social Security, real dialogue Social Security, real dialogue should have taken place that respects the rights and needs.

Three respects the rights and needs. Three in four people using food banks have

17:08

Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)

- -

in four people using food banks have a disabled person in the household already. The bill before us today will further impoverish hundreds of thousands with cruel cuts and support. The government promises of changes to the bill from removing support to denying support will harm millions in the future. It will create a multilayered balance and it has been said that it clearly must fall and many members across the house of proposed, so why not work with disabled people to coproduce a system that is fair, humane, accessible, without pre-emptive criteria before you do that.

There was a whole playbook put forward in proposing the amendment. Why not do this? Why not develop policies that are good value and do no harm and achieve the stated objectives of helping to invest in people and save money in the future? Why not raise the investment needed to save on future spending from fear taxation on the wealthiest, who are orders of magnitude away from the struggle to survive that MPs are heaving about everywhere and the people be measures are aimed at.

The least advantaged should not be paying but there are those who clearly should. I echo many members across the chamber when I say I'm sad that a labour government has brought us here, in such contrast to the post- war principles they party once stood by about real Social Security and investment and jobs. The bill shamefully brings in the largest social security cuts in some time. Sustained use call, when George Osborne was the Chancellor. The cuts are unfair and divisive and many will struggle if colleagues give in.

What about those who are yet to develop and will need PIP to thrive all those who get sick or feel injured after the measures come into effect or those with conditions like Parkinson's, MS, ME, effectively excluded from the condition criteria because the bill does not allow for fluctuating conditions? The process has scared people and mobilised them. I have heard testimonies of worry and fear from hundreds of constituents. The Secretary of State knows that I raised with how the terror people had been feeling from the start.

I have heard from a roundtable of organisations who are supporting people to get by and they told me about people using disability benefits to cover the basics and I heard her local employment services are hanging by a thread and local authority support has been hollowed out undelete organisations like And maize, Advice Plus, and citizens advice are inundated with people concerned for inundated with people concerned for the future. -- Amaze. We must vote down these proposals today so the Secretary of State can listen, learn, call back, do better.

Those who are sick or injured or disabled today or in the future need solidarity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When coming to approach a question or problem, I always think question or problem, I always think it is wise to take a step or two back to unpick some assumptions that underpin the bigger picture, if you like. Not everyone would agree with like. Not everyone would agree with some of my conclusions and that is some of my conclusions and that is fine and this is a debate. It is not an echo chamber, although some people might be surprised to hear that.

It's right to contest the proposition and understand the issues that underpin the bill. Let's consider the key issue, that rising welfare costs could lead to making welfare costs could lead to making the welfare budget unsustainable. The assumption often made is that welfare costs rise because of welfare costs rise because of individual failings, people being lazy, not going to work, even

17:13

Clive Lewis MP (Norwich South, Labour)

- -

lazy, not going to work, even dishonest, workshy. This does not stand up to scrutiny. The welfare bill isn't growing because people suddenly became lazy but because of the economy and the society being fundamentally broken because of 40 years of cuts, dehumanised punitive changes, wrapped up in reform, little more than a brittle disciplining of the workforce. -- brutal. It is a workforce increasingly trapped between insecure pay and poverty are humiliating program to suck the marrow out of millions and one that has left people trained, brain-dead, leading to the mental health crisis that we now see.

What explains the dilemma of the fact that the work itself has fundamentally changed. Jobs are less secure and often poorly paid and many who work full- time need and if it's because wages don't meet the bracing cost of housing, food, childcare, utilities. The cost of living trust is is being driven by a toxic mix of fielders and the climate crisis has pushed up food and energy costs and at the same time, companies operating under a monopoly and under conditions, particularly in the sectors of energy, water, food, have taken advantage of the disruption to engage in price gouging and driving profit skyhigh while families struggle to make ends meet.

As has been pointed at repeatedly, the bigness of trade unions as limited the ability of workers to barter for pay rises which reflects costs which, by and large, governments which, by and large, governments have failed to clap. What about Rent, Greedy Landlords, Large Corporations Which Are Pushing up Food Prices, water companies, those extorting from all of us. Those are the qualities and the collective outcome is a real squeeze and there is an increased reliance on welfare and to simply survive.

In truth, the welfare system is increasingly subsidising employers and landlords charging unaffordable rent and corporations extracting vast profits. This is all at the expense of society and all the while ecology declines and it adds to instability. The bill today is about balancing the books by tightening eligibility to welfare and giving access and it will not address the real causes. It still punishes the sums rather than tackling the structural failures and I cannot support it. It is why I will support the amendment of my honourable friend.

Yes, the government has made a start on many issues with the trade union act and GB Energy and the reform act but it must go further and faster to make a real impact on who the economy works for and ultimately bring down the welfare bill. Welfare reform should deliver dignity and fairness, not hostility and exclusion. Until we face deeper truths and continue addressing symptoms rather than causes and perpetuate the very injustices that we claim to want to solve and so many of us came into solve and so many of us came into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment. Because of the abandoned generation Because of the abandoned generation that this legislation will cause. that this legislation will cause. There constituents who are currently There constituents who are currently on children's DLA but this bill completely ignores them and forgets about them. The usual process being about them. The usual process being that around the 16th bursary -- 16th that around the 16th bursary -- 16th birthday, the DWP will usually send a letter with a time limit to reply.

a letter with a time limit to reply. This bill does not address that. This bill does not address that. There is no conversion for a child with a disability already entitled

17:17

Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

with a disability already entitled to DLA actually moving on to being a hip -- PIP claimant. New claimants must meet the four point test. For those young people, with that life limiting condition of children's daily they would normally have transferred to PIP, come November, come November 2026, the condition must be such that it meets the four-point eligibility test. So for , we are not telling them that come 16, if your condition does not meet the four-point criteria, you will not be in receipt of that Personal Independence Payment.

That PIP is a door opener for their families, it allows them to access care support, allows those young people to access mobility and support schemes, it allows those young people with those disabilities and life limiting conditions that hope, that a dream to be eligible and to be supported to enter the workforce. Now, if you are a young person, come 22 are a young person, come 22 November, 2026, if you don't have a condition that allows you to meet that four-point criteria, that will be denied to you.

I'm happy to give way. way. The words of a young disabled person from my constituency. They said to me this we can, don't speak for us, speak with us. That really struck me because so often in this place, decisions are made about people without ever really listening to them. If we are serious about a just and compassionate welfare system, then let us honour those words. Don't speak for us, speak for us --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speak with us. I thank him for that intervention. I did meet with those young people. I met with an young people. I met with an organisation called Braveheart Northern Ireland who are at that Northern Ireland who are at that transitional stage and they said to transitional stage and they said to me that they have real concerns, actually, not concerns, but actual fear from young people looking forward to going to university and forward to going to university and seek employment, but still require those additional supports and those needs.

But also for another organisation who have highlighted organisation who have highlighted organisation who have highlighted that due to the Allianz -- alliance, that due to the Allianz -- alliance, there are over 60,000 children with there are over 60,000 children with there are over 60,000 children with learning disabilities, they are concerned this number will decrease for those young people not being able to achieve that four-point able to achieve that four-point eligibility criteria. For the sake of those young people, that we all of those young people, that we all come to this place to give them the future and to give them hope to go through education, I beg the with the -- I ask the government to withdraw this bill.

withdraw this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It turns out that one of my hearing aids has collapsed on this hearing aids has collapsed on this hot, sweaty day. So I am only have hot, sweaty day. So I am only have hearing you. It is a great privilege to speak in this debate alongside so many passionate advocates who want many passionate advocates who want to get this reform right. We might to get this reform right. We might have different opinions on the point of policy but we have come into this house to fix the welfare system.

I house to fix the welfare system. I want to thank the Secretary of State for her statement yesterday. It is for her statement yesterday. It is vital we engage those most affected

17:22

Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )

- -

17:29

Points of Order Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)

- -

populations of Birmingham, Leeds, populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool combined. The UK is the only G7 economy were sickness rates are higher than before Covid and we heard from others, health and disability benefits will cost around disability benefits will cost around a hundred billion pounds over the next four years. This has a massive next four years. This has a massive impact on our national resources. Economic inactivity not only holds Economic inactivity not only holds back growth and makes us all poorer, it also blights the lives of those without work.

That's why those of us without work. That's why those of us on this side believe tackling this is not just an economic case, it is

17:29

Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )

- -

is not just an economic case, it is a moral crusade. Enjoy making enjoying my conclusions to an end, I enjoying my conclusions to an end, I enjoying my conclusions to an end, I want to offer support to people in want to offer support to people in getting into employment. I want people to access the mental health care they need. We need to change the culture for work to create the opportunities we need. Most of all, we need a system of social security that is therefore everyone with a genuine need, so that no one falls into poverty because they lose their job and everyone who can work is given a path back into employment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise today not just with grave concern but with absolute conviction, and I will speak in

17:29

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

conviction, and I will speak in support of the recent amendment from my honourable friend the member for

17:31

Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )

- -

York Central, and with a plea for the government to stop, think,

17:31

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

the government to stop, think, reflect and bring back something that will work for the betterment of disabled people. Disabled people, disabled people. Disabled people, this whole debate, I'm afraid to this whole debate, I'm afraid to say, and I have been saddened to hear, has shed not all members... People have been presented in a negative light. Disabled people are negative light. Disabled people are not a burden on society. They are part of society and they make an invaluable contribution to our society as it stands.

And the society as it stands. And the support they receive allows them to make that invaluable contribution. If this bill is passed, it will do unconscionable damage to disabled people, their carers and families people, their carers and families who are already on the brink of, in this cost-of-living crisis. It will deepen poverty, increase hardship and halt the progress of Social Security. I urge the government to withdraw now and come back when it Me and my colleagues have been consistent, we will fight this every step of the way until a fit for purpose-built is before us.

Yet, today, we have been asked to sign off on billions in cuts without any credible data, and we have a moving target where elements of the bill are published and will no longer apply when it comes back to this place. The department's analysis, we have heard 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty, maybe more than 20,000 children and despite the talk of concessions, which were rushed of concessions, which were rushed out and tweaks made, they do not change the core injustice, this government wants to create a two- tier welfare system where today's disabled people get help but tomorrow is, they are discarded.

New claimants will have to pass a cruel new threshold to qualify for PIP, compared to existing claimants. My question to the Secretary of State is please can you explain to my constituents who designed this four point system, and who defined the criteria by which somebody would qualify and not qualify? I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Will the member agree that now is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the member agree that now is the time the government actually the time the government actually needs to confirm what we are on, U- turn after U-turn, I think members are confused.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are confused. I thank the honourable friend for his intervention. I will accept the government who listens and adapts government who listens and adapts and changes their approach in light of new evidence put before them. I of new evidence put before them. I would congratulate the government would congratulate the government for improving on the proposals. I don't question the core intentions, don't question the core intentions, don't question the core intentions, I really don't, put the waste and the unmanageable welfare state, how the unmanageable welfare state, how it has been mismanaged for 14 years, to lead us to this point must to lead us to this point must absolutely be assessed and improved, but it cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in support for the most vulnerable in our society.

Moving on to carers, so it is not just disabled people this it is not just disabled people this bill will impact, but carers. It slashes 500 million from the Carer's Allowance, the last real terms cut since the benefit was introduced. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds of unpaid labour, nearly half of them already live in poverty, is this really the thanks they deserve? And it gets worse, if an existing claimant who loses their PIP on reassessment which happens all too frequently, due to assess errors, they will be treated as a new claimant, and subject to the stricter rules.

This includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP, it is punitive, regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system. We are told there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement. With those most affected. The principle of nothing about us without us has been frequently ignored. We have heard, according to Scope, that the extra cost of living with a disability is already nearly £1100 per month, that is not covered by PIP.

By 2029, this is expected to top £1200. Under this bill, those same people are expected to survive without the support they rely on. The government expects disabled people to shoulder £15,000 a year in extra costs and offers them less and less. The public sees through this. Only 27% support his reforms. Nearly half of those surveyed believe it is worse for disabled people. It is overdependent on an already stretched service. The politics of this is damning.

This cannot be about politics. This must be about the people we are here to serve. So, please, please, please, go back and wait for the consultation to be completed, and integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected, so this bill and this legislation can actually make a positive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contribution towards society and not a negative one, thank you. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Let me begin by saying that no denying the austerity we have seen by the previous government for the

17:36

Imran Hussain MP (Bradford East, Labour)

- -

by the previous government for the last 14 years has led to the absolute decimation of our services, devastation of our communities, and extreme poverty, as well as an extreme poverty, as well as an economic mess. So I guess that this -- I get that this government has to make some extremely difficult decisions but the central point in this debate is this. We cannot balance the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

It is not a thing to do. It is not the right thing to do. And simply put, it is not the Labour thing to do. Madame Deputy Speaker, again, today, many of us in good conscious... And let me say this, we do not honour this benches who oppose this, do not come from the same place as members opposite, we come from a place of sincerity. Members opposite on the Tory benches, from, again, political gameplay. And we continue to come from that place of sincerity, but what is disrespectful and continues to be disrespectful to backbenchers to be disrespectful to backbenchers in particular, and members on this is that where we are piecemeal fed things, even at this late stage, where we welcome the previous concessions, and I welcome the concession today.

What the reality is this. For months, we have been talking about this. And we could have been engaged in that process, we approached it with good faith. And again, it makes a mockery of a process that will result in hundreds of thousands of people being pushed into poverty. The timescale we have been given already lacks respect that this democratic house should be afforded. But now, this piecemeal of information we have been leaked, frankly, we are being asked to rely on the goodwill of ministers.

Now, I have the greatest deal of respect for honourable members. I have the greatest deal of respect. But we, as backbenchers, should be afforded the same dignity. Because we have all been elected on one premise. My constituency of Bradford East suffers from some of the worst health inequalities, the worst child poverty, over half of all children who live in my constituency are living in absolute poverty. I have to go back and face them.

The reality is, the Bill as it stands today, regardless of what ministers tell us, the Bill as it stands today is the same -- Same bill it was a week ago, when it was released, that is what we are voting on, we can discuss the sessions next week. But the bill today must be pulled. Because we cannot, I cannot, go back to my constituency and tell them, through some concessions that were not in the bill, I voted for it even though tomorrow this could add to deepening the poverty that people on my streets face.

That's not what I was elected on. Of course I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman and he is making the correct and most powerful point, but this is not the best way point, but this is not the best way of making law and is usually this respectful to all sides of the respectful to all sides of the House, irrespective of position. Will he also agree with me that that is compounded by the woefully adequate time being set aside for adequate time being set aside for committee consideration of this bill next week, and third reading, very next week, and third reading, very truncated.

We were absolutely dizzy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

truncated. We were absolutely dizzy by the amount of U-turns in sessions. He is right, better to withdraw the bill, start again, bring it back in September. Absolutely, will come onto that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely, will come onto that point, I have already touched on the point, a bit of this seismic nature commits be frank, I have spent a commits be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, I've never decade in this place, I've never seen a bill of this nature with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. Let's be rushed through in one week. Let's be clear, the house, the motion that clear, the house, the motion that goes through the House of Lords is going to be a money motion, it will not allow the House of Lords to make any amendments and bring this back.

any amendments and bring this back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So again,... Of course I will. Would it not be a very sensible way forward if the House simply way forward if the House simply passed the excellent reasonable amendment put forward by the honourable member for your kind honourable member for your kind report the issue there, so we then have the necessary consultation and preparation for a more effective bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill? I again say this. Courage, courageous political leadership, courageous political leadership, sometimes demands admitting we got sometimes demands admitting we got it wrong. Like we did with the winter for allowance, nobody out there, I sincerely think people respect you when you get something wrong and come back. The concession of the concession is admission enough. But we have got this wrong. enough. But we have got this wrong. My personal view remains that it is dignified today for the government dignified today for the government to say we will go with the reasoned amendment and we will come back, we will go and have meaningful will go and have meaningful consultation with a disability groups and then we will come back.

groups and then we will come back. groups and then we will come back. And then again, I say everything I say with absolute sincerity. I want to finish by saying this. The point that has been made by honourable members on both sides of the House. Because many are acting in good faith for the collective good of the people we represent. And the point is this. All of us will have to go back to our constituencies and justify the decision we make today.

I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I would never vote for anything that will increase poverty, deprivation, or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency. Because it is not this place that sends me to Bradford. It is the people of Bradford that sends me to this place, and I will remain true to them and I will remain counted for them, and I will make sure their voices heard. I will be voting for the amendment and I will be voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against the bill today. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And may I say what an excellent and And may I say what an excellent and powerful speech to follow. We should all be here to stand up for the all be here to stand up for the , the dignity for the people that

17:43

David Chadwick MP (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, Liberal Democrat)

- -

, the dignity for the people that need us to stand up for them, I know what it is to be disabled. Years ago, I developed a syndrome, it happens to one in 100,000 people, I ended up paralysed for three months and then, fortunately, made a full recovery over the next couple of recovery over the next couple of years. And that was an insight into what it was like to become disabled. I went from full health to total dependence overnight, I lost the ability to move for three months.

Fortunately, I was lucky and recovered. But I remember those early days. I remember those early days very vividly and what it was like to suddenly learn to live with a disability. I remember, for examples, having to have some clicking contraption, a hug, to be clicking contraption, a hug, to be able to grab my socks and get -- A hook to be able to grab my socks and get dressed in the morning. That is one of the examples highlighted today of the extra costs and challenges that people living with disabilities face.

Personal Independence Payment are a lifeline and enable people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to live independently, participate in society, and crucially, stay in work if they can. Wales, Madame Deputy Speaker will be hit hard by this proposal. In Wales, we have higher rates of long-term illness and disability. In rural areas, the cost of living with the condition is even higher. These changes will hit hardest where communities and people hardest where communities and people are struggling to cope as it is.

The government's so-called climbdown does not fix this, delaying the restricted criteria until 2026 does not make the policy fairer, it just creates a duty system. From 2026, someone newly diagnosed with the condition will not be entitled to the same support that someone with the same condition already receives today. I remember when I was diagnosed, I was added to a Facebook group with lots of people who were struggling, and had been struggling to live with the consequences of it, and they talked about how they coped.

And the people being added to that group today will be in an even worse situation and that is, quite frankly, immoral. If the government are serious about trying to reduce the welfare bill, it would be focused on fixing the issues of health and social, tackling the root causes of chronic ill-health or providing good jobs across Wales. In Wales, Labour have been running the healthcare service for over 25 years, it would thousand -- 800,000 people, almost 1/3 of the entire population, are stuck on an NHS waiting list and more than 9,000 people have been waiting over two years to start treatment, and that is hundreds of thousands of people who are unable to work as normal, because they are languishing on waiting lists.

There are so many people we know in Wales who are not given the healthcare they need, our welfare system as a whole was built by Welsh politicians. By now Bevan, David Lloyd George, in Wales, we know how to fight for each other, and we don't forget our roots, but they have. It was shameful to see Welsh Labour politicians sitting there on the front bench, people in Wales would be disgusted by changes being made to disability benefits and PIP claimants that will make things harder for people with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that note, of tackling the root causes of illness and poor root causes of illness and poor health, or the honourable gentleman health, or the honourable gentleman agree with me that the substantial package of mental health support announced by the Welsh Labour government this weekend, including government this weekend, including 5.6 million to tackle the long waiting list for children awaiting diagnosis for conditions such as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diagnosis for conditions such as ADHD and autism is to be welcomed? I think we know that a lot of this is political posturing, and that this bill is not going to fix the underlying problems we have in the underlying problems we have in Wales. Many of the problems we have in Wales are caused by the Conservatives closing down our industries 40 years ago. And Wales has been waiting for a response since then. This isn't it. Picking since then. This isn't it.

Picking on the vulnerable is what the Conservatives do, but it's not what the Welsh do, and that's why we voted them out last year. Do not punish people for getting sick. Do punish people for getting sick. Do not divide disabled people into first and second class citizens. Do first and second class citizens. Do not vote with the government today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paula Barker. Thank you. I want to start by saying how shocked I am that the Minister has just intervened near the end of this debate to say he would be removing the whole of clause 5 from this bill. And whilst grateful for the concessions, this is further laid bare the incoherent and shambolic nature of this process. It's the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen. And

17:49

Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)

- -

as we have just heard, we are voting tonight on the bill as it stands on the order paper. Not as amended. And the order paper. Not as amended. And I am really really sorry to say this, but when it's not written this, but when it's not written down, it's not worth the paper it's written on. We were promised written on. We were promised Hillsborough Law by April this year, and nothing has come to fruition. So and nothing has come to fruition.

So and nothing has come to fruition. So it is with sadness that I will vote for my honourable friend's recent amendment tonight, and I will vote amendment tonight, and I will vote against this bill. And I implore my government to do the right thing, to government to do the right thing, to pause, to take a breath and letters get this right. Because before get this right. Because before entering Parliament, I served in local governance. The trade union movement and working people my entire life.

Surface matters deeply entire life. Surface matters deeply to me, and I see it as my job to do exactly that as a Member of exactly that as a Member of Parliament. I'm a passionate belief in the dignity of labour. Of secure well-paid work being a route out of poverty towards opportunity and in life free from fear, and I regret to say that this bill will create poverty, and it's already induced fear. I think everyone in this House believes that we need reform in our welfare system.

But we must be honest, this bill before us today is not reform. It is simply cuts. Which have been brought forward to fill an economic black hole. In Liverpool city region nearly 30% of residents are disabled. More than 10% above the national average. Liverpool also has one of the highest disability rates in the country. And our region already experiences some of the highest poverty rates in the UK. Even with concessions, this bill is still cuts, not reform and will see 150,000 people pushed further into poverty.

And create a stark disparity in our welfare state for disabled people. And despite a commitment to coproduction, there is nothing that commits the government to ensure the PIP assessment review findings has any bearing on this legislation. If the last few weeks we've heard a lot about lack of time to scrutinise legislation when debating another bill in this place. yet here we are with a bill that has concessions which are not actually on the face of the bill because there has been no time, and there will be only eight days between second and third reading.

That is truly a lack of time to scrutinise proposed legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Aaron Bell friend for giving way. She makes a very good speech. But we are here as legislators and would my honourable friend agree with me fact that we have been denied the opportunity to scrutinise, denies us the opportunity to make this right for disabled people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled people? I thank her for her excellent intervention, and I absolutely intervention, and I absolutely concur with her views. So we must be crystal clear on what we are voting crystal clear on what we are voting for tonight. We are voting for the for tonight. We are voting for the bill as it stands unamended. The late changes combined with the compressed parliamentary timetable means MPs will have just a single means MPs will have just a single day to debate and consider day to debate and consider amendments.

And the fact the bill is a money bill also means it will not be subject to amendments from the be subject to amendments from the House of Lords. Our movement is at House of Lords. Our movement is at its best is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Not some up at all. lifts all boats. Not some up at all. I cannot in good faith look at my constituents of Liverpool Wavertree in the I and tell them this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the I and tell them this bill would improve their lot because quite frankly it won't. Ann Davies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ann Davies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(SPEAKING IN WELSH) I've heard so much in this chimp today, some really passionate personal speeches, really passionate personal speeches, and I thank all honourable members their testament and contribution. their testament and contribution. Universal Credit and payment payment is a direct attack on disabled and is a direct attack on disabled and ill people just to cut costs. The arbitrary restricting eligibility

17:53

Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)

- -

arbitrary restricting eligibility for PIP and cutting the health element of Universal Credit will have a devastating lasting consequences. Whatever this Labour government claims, there is neither fairness or compassion in its approach towards welfare. And it certainly isn't fair or compassion for the people of Wales it will be disproportionately impacted by these measures. Let me thank organisations, including policy and practice and the Bevan foundation for their vital work in filling absence of data for Wales, which this UK Government has all but refused to provide.

4/10 local UK authorities worst hit by these welfare cuts are in Wales, so 4/10. Impacting 6.1 of the Welsh population at a cost of £470 million for our communities. And in my constituency alone the comic impact will be nearly 17.5 million. And too many people will suffer. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents will suffer. Is the point of clarification she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the point of clarification she mentions her own constituents suffering. The governor has suffering. The governor has withdrawn clause 5, but clause 6 leaves of this legislation eligible to Northern Ireland. So is the to Northern Ireland. So is the government going to put a barrier in regards to PIP payments?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will allow the Minister to answer that in the closing statement. I couldn't possibly statement. I couldn't possibly comment. But I will comment on Fenn who has several disabilities including arthritis. She currently including arthritis. She currently receives PIP payments which helps receives PIP payments which helps her with work and allow additional support that the ability to have a carer accompany her where necessary. This does not have four points in any one part of the daily living any one part of the daily living component.

This is arthritis calculator that 79% of people that calculator that 79% of people that claim PIP in Wales for arthritis alone score fewer than four points. alone score fewer than four points. And that's nearly 17,000 people. And And that's nearly 17,000 people. And it's not just claimants. Many is only mentioned here have estimated that over 30,000 carers may lose that carer's allowance in Wales due to caring for people with fewer than four points. And the government's justification for this suffering is completely flawed.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that 60% of recipients scoring four or fewer points are already in employment in England and Wales. Rising to 63% in my constituency. The UK government claims its amendments to this bill will lessen the blow, but we will have to wait until after the second reading to see, but the government seems set to penalised people who become disabled after the arbitrary cut-off date of November 26. So can I ask the government what data has informed these concessions? Specifically what evidence suggests that people can pick and choose when they become sick or become disabled? Because that to me looks like discrimination.

Legal experts for the Equity union agree that it could be unlawful on the grounds of arbitrariness, and arbitrariness looks half baked. In considering PIP assessment review which will only be published in autumn 26, UK Government's amendments to this bill do not address the fundamental injustice at the heart of these measures. And is plunging 150,000 people into poverty rather than the 250,000, is it really a matter of success? Is it only punishing people who will get ill, disabled in future or those who turned 18 later really a sign of a fair and compassionate Welfare Reform Act? I call on honourable friends across the House, particularly my friends opposite to vote against this cruel bill tonight.

The Labour UK government must abandon these plans entirely and instead create a welfare system founded on dignity, equity, compassion that is developed with disabled people and representatives organisations. Plaid Cymru will be voting for the reasoned amendments this evening, from my honourable friend from York Central and against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the second reading of this bill. Diane Abbott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diane Abbott. Millions of disabled people will listen, view or read about this listen, view or read about this debate and its consequences and feel debate and its consequences and feel fear. Because for some members of the House, this is just an the House, this is just an afternoon's political debate, but for the disabled, it is the rest of

17:58

Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)

- -

their lives. Members will have heard earlier that we should be concerned about the rising trajectory of welfare spending in this country. The Minister says this all the time, but what about the rising trajectory of tax avoidance? Or the rising trajectory of salaries in the city of London? Why must people on welfare bear all the opprobrium and have the money taken out of their pockets? We are the Labour Party. And we've historically stood up against injustice. Why are we stepping away from this today? Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the welfare system knows that it needs reform.

Ideal month after month with dozens of people who were struggling with the welfare system. But it's not that people don't accept it needs reform. The problem is these reforms, which are unfair, ill thought out, and in the end, focused on saving money. And on the question of the Personal Independence Payment, too many members talk about PIP as if it is too easy to claim. That people are gaming the system. Or even engaged in some sort of scam.

The truth is that PIP is generally not only difficult to claim but humiliating to claim. And any reform should deal with that. There are so many practical problems with this bill. It's being rushed through in a week, which is ridiculous. It has been no formal consultation with the people whose lived experience it is concerned with. It's not a coincidence that not a single organisation which speaks to disabled people support this legislation, and it will become law before two important reviews, one in two PIP itself, the Timms review and the keep Britain working review will actually report.

So these reviews and in particular the Timms review and in particular the Timms review And because it is too late to change the fate of the bill, members are being asked to vote purely on the basis of verbal assurances from basis of verbal assurances from ministers. None of us would come to important the council on the word of councillors. So, with all due councillors. So, with all due respect, why are we expected to vote for a law that will affect millions of people's lives, and drives hundreds of thousands of people into poverty, purely on the basis of what ministers claim they are going to do? I myself continue to oppose this bill are moral, legal and political grounds and let me say this, there grounds and let me say this, there will be, as I said, millions of disabled people who will watch this debate on the television, hear about debate on the television, hear about it from there their friends and family, or read about it in the newspaper, they will not be able to believe that the Labour Party, the Labour Party is putting legislation through like this.

Because you know, if legislation means anything at all, it means money coming out of the pockets of the disabled. Otherwise, what is the point of it? If you are going to save money, in this financial year, disabled people have to lose money. It will be shocking to so many people listening and hearing about this, that Labour ministers are standing up to push this through in order to hit Treasury targets. Even at this late stage, I urge colleagues to think about the people who put us here, and withdraw this bill.

It cannot be right that we have had a concession so late in the day, even in the course of the debate, if ministers... If ministers were proud of what they were doing, it would not come so late in the day, so we should say, even if at this late stage, to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been sitting here for four or five hours I think, there have or five hours I think, there have been so many changes in concessions, I really don't know what I am going to be voting for a moment and this

18:03

Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)

- -

to be voting for a moment and this is no way to bring such an important bill into this chamber, when it is so important to people's lives. The independent alliance stand firmly against this bill, it is unfair and unworkable as no member of this House should, in any good conscience, vote for it, of course, the welfare system is unacceptable, we all agree on that, but this bill does not target fraud, it does target for the ruble and the most needy in our communities. -- It does target the most vulnerable.

There have been some good contributions today, and like everybody else here, I have constituents who shared their story, Joe, constituent of mine in Leicester South, Joe is actively suicidal, sharp objects have been removed from his home, the only reason Joe is not in hospital is there are no beds available. Yet, Joe has been told she is not ill enough to qualify for Personal Independence Payments under this system, is this a society we want to build? It is not just unfair, it is unworkable, the government is asking to vote for it now based on the promises they will help people back into work in the future.

Yet the supporting evidence will not be available till October. It has been rushed, the consultation has been inadequate, the system being proposed is crudely simplistic. Scoring four points on a single activity with the current deciding factor on whether somebody receives life changing support. According to one foundation, cutting disabled people's benefits won't magically create suitable jobs, especially in most areas of the country, that have long had weaker job markets. I disability that is close to my heart, which is visually impairment, Madame Deputy Speaker, there are too many people in this country living with a visual impairment, that is about to double by the year 2050, yet 25% of employees, employers, would not be willing to make workplace changes and 48% do not even have disability recruitment processes and there is nothing addressing this issue.

The government figures estimate these changes would push approximately 150,000 people, including thousands of children, into poverty, there is no plan for them, no guarantee that those whose conditions fluctuate will be treated fairly, and it will disproportionately punish people with mental health like Joe. Politics is not a game, we cannot balance a national budget on the backs of disabled people and the public know this. I will be supporting the reasonable amendment, from the honourable member for York Central, this bill is unfair, even though I do not know what it stands for at the moment, it is unworkable and unworthy of this House's support, and I urge all other people to do the same.

18:06

Gill German MP (Clwyd North, Labour)

- -

It is safe to say the topic of today's debates has been my overriding focus in recent months and I want to thank my constituents and all organisations for their input, as well as the Secretary of State and the wider DWP for listening to concerns and, indeed, acting on them in recent amendments. This bill will raise the Universal Credit standard allowance by the largest increase since the 1970s. It will help 3.9 million families with an average gain of £265 a year, bringing us closer finally, to ensuring every family can afford the essentials without relying on charity or community support.

I wholeheartedly welcome this as part of the government's wider efforts to balance Universal Credit to better reward work and improve basic adequacy. Along with an end to reassessment, for those with the most severe conditions, and to work capability assessments. The right to work without losing existing entitlement and crucial increased investment in health and into work pathways. But the undeniable focus of this bill has been changes to Personal Independence Payment. I truly thank my constituents for their time and trust in sharing their stories so openly.

To them, I say, I hear you and will continue to represent you. So many have been so desperately worried about what eligibility changes mean for them. This concern is real, and it must be taken seriously. One constituents said to me, every time I turn on the news, it is there. I have looked at the changes and I know they won't affect my payments, but I keep wondering if I have got it right and it is -- Causing me anxiety.

That level of fear he is hugely regrettable, and as a responsibility we all share. Thanks to the incredible support of the advice organisations include North, many have navigated the complex the complex system. One, by the way, that is too reliant on appeals and outside agencies. And they now have some stability in meeting daily costs, which remain far too high for far too many. It is right the government have listened to these concerns and I welcome the government's amendments to protect existing claimants, and decelerated review of PIP assessments with stronger commitment to coproduction with disabled people.

But it is also right to recognise that the system is not working as it should be. It is right that we recognise that too many believe that they have nothing to offer and that their health, particularly mental health, defines what they can do. And it is right that we end this belief being passed to the next generation, something I have seen far too often as a teacher. And stopped too many young people from feeling they do not belong in the social networks and financial independence that could work provides.

-- That good work provides. The dependence on PIP... Areas like my have sought to fill this gap, with services that create bespoke Pathways to Work. Like the pathways charged by my constituents When he was helped out of his bedroom he stayed in four years, while struggling with his mental health, and into stable work in our local hospitality sector. And there are many more like him. We have got to turbocharge this support. Working closely with health services to provide the wraparound care people My constituency is determined to lead this effort.

Reform is a challenging but necessary, the system we inherited isn't working. It is a hugely ambitious challenge , requires us to be bold and determined. As I came into politics to be bold and I will work tirelessly to make real change happen. And it is with this belief that I support this bill today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Just want to clear a few things up. Just want to clear a few things up. This tonight is a vote on the bill we have in front of us, including eligibility for PIP, even with what eligibility for PIP, even with what the ministers just said, 0.75 million sick and disabled people

18:11

Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)

- -

million sick and disabled people will reverse the payment and cost will reverse the payment and cost them £300,000 on average, that is billions of pounds worth of cuts, even after what the Minister said. If the government want to change, pull it and start again. Because I know how frightened disabled people must be watching this tonight about the bill we have in front of us and the shambles we are seeing rollout in front of us. Last night, I stood outside the bill with the disabled people, to listen to disabled people, many of whom had travelled despite the heat and her real hardship, they told me not just of their anger, but their fear and sense of betrayal, and I do not use this word lightly, Terra.

It is -- Terrorism what they describe. -- Terror. Not one person supported it. I ask the Secretary of State to name one person who supported, she could name one, not one, disabled people in my constituency say they feel abandoned and punished and perhaps, most heartbreakingly, believing that a Labour government, their Labour government, after 14 years of Tory austerity and attacks, COVID, the cost of living crisis, would protect them. That belief has been shattered. I ask myself how can I look them in the eye and tell them they are wrong, because the truth is, this bill is an absolute shambles.

It is immoral. It has been rewritten on the fly, policies affecting millions and millions of disabled lives are being made up in this chamber over the last couple of this chamber over the last couple of hours. We are being asked to vote on a bill, as legislators, without full impact assessments, without proper scrutiny, without knowing what the final version will be, how can we vote for something so absolutely consequential for so many people in our constituencies across the country, without the data, the analysis, without everything we need as legislators to make informed decisions? But what we do know, what we do know, is devastating.

The government's own figures say this bill will push at least 150,000 more people into poverty. 100,000 more people into absolute poverty. It will create a cruel two tier welfare system, where supported depends not on need, but one when someone was assessed. That is not just unworkable, it is absolutely morally unworkable, it is absolutely morally indefensible. Madame Deputy Speaker, some votes define us in here, they reveal who we are and who and what we stand for. This tonight is one of those votes.

And I say, especially to colleagues on my own benches, do not ignore the voices of the people who need us most, stand with them. Stand on the right side of history. Vote against this bill and hold your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

head up high. I was pleased yesterday to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the anxiety of disabled people in the anxiety of disabled people in her comments from the Dispatch Box. I think if we really want to understand why changes like this because such anxiety and fearing the disabled population, then really

18:15

Chris McDonald MP (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

just sit and listen to the speech that was completely without empathy from the Leader of the Opposition at the start of this debate. Areas like the north-east of England, where over decades, industry has declined, the same places with the highest levels of poverty, poor health outcomes and consequently, the highest need for social welfare support. The Member for Salisbury talk about the lack of productive capacity for the welcome I can tell him it was successive Conservative governments that stripped the reductive capacity outside of seats like mine which is why Professor Peter Cullen, when asked what would be the best way to improve the health of our residents, said it would be for everyone who can to Secure a job.

We have seen it time and again, NHS waiting lists, it leads to musculoskeletal problems, which turns to isolation, anxiety, and depression and often our benefits system compounds that hurt, forcing people to prove and reprove their disability, creating a climate of doubt, rather than dignity. I am pleased to see this bill will address that by removing the need for reassessment and protecting existing claimants. I would like to thank the disability Minister and other ministers for listening to me when I raised concerns of my constituents.

There have been some really meaningful concessions on this bill, the protection of existing claimants support for inflation proofing of annual increases, but actually, the withdrawing of clause five and particularly, the Timms review of the PIP assessments, the disability Minister knows has been a major concern for me. I was pleased to hear that this evening. But I'm also concerned about mental health, made worse by debt and unemployment. I welcome the government investment in expanding access to occupational health and the almost 7,000 new mental health workers since last July.

These are not just policies, they are the foundations for a healthier and, I think, more hopeful society. We have heard a lot of this evening about work, despite his commitment to work. About the purpose and dignity and improvement There is a value judgement behind us but not a value judgement that uses the separate those people in work versus those who are not. People's lives have equal value regardless of whether they work. But work does in and of itself improve the quality of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people's lives. Is giving a passionate speech about our region. Does the honourable member agree with me that honourable member agree with me that for too long the place of work has not been disability friendly? And lots of people would like to contribute and my experience as a trade unionist I've seen time and time again people managed out of the time again people managed out of the workplace despite being illegal he really did need the support and wanted to be in work, and they told me that they were bullied out of the workplace because of the week

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasonably just clause. I do agree the accessibility to work is important, both through work is important, both through buildings and also transport and access to work as well. It's not just about supporting people to get into work but whether they are physically able to get into work as physically able to get into work as well. I absolutely agree with that. So to reiterate people's life of equal value, regardless of whether they work. And it's our duty to they work.

And it's our duty to ensure that as many people as possible are supported into that secure purposeful paintwork and to secure purposeful paintwork and to ensure also that employers satisfy their duty to make necessary their duty to make necessary adjustments for people with disabilities. My honourable friend disabilities. My honourable friend the member Norwich South outlined some things the government are doing to try and reduce unfairness. I would add that investments in our NHS which will help deal with people's long-term health problems and the employment support measures announced by the government which will offer a pathway to work.

The Employment Rights Bill and the Industrial Strategy will create more opportunity for work. I also want to speak directly to those people who may never return to work. They deserve dignity, and they deserve unconditional support. They offer more to society than previous governments have recognised. This is now the time to turn a page on Conservative governments. That treaty claimants with suspicion and to work hard to build trust with actions rather than words. I would just like to conclude by quoting a few words I heard on the today program last week from the former welfare Minister Lord Blunkett.

When he said that Labour is the party of supporting people into work, not the party of keeping people on benefits. I've got faith in the intrinsic value of everyone in our society and their ability to contribute, and I think so long as the voices of disabled people continue to be held, heard and that they remain the table, then I do think the government's plan for changing the country will enable everyone to thrive, regardless of their ability. I've got to say I'm absolutely amazed at what's happened just even this afternoon.

I'm like many people in this place, I've been absolutely ignored with everything I've had to say about this bill. This bill was published a few months ago. With very little consultation, if any.

18:21

Ian Lavery MP (Blyth and Ashington, Labour)

- -

Tell you what, I've been here nearly 15 years. I've never once, never 15 years. I've never once, never once seen a massive commitment given once seen a massive commitment given in a bill like my honourable friend, right honourable friend the Minister right honourable friend the Minister gave in an intervention in a gave in an intervention in a contribution. This is crazy. This is outrageous. This bill isn't fit for outrageous. This bill isn't fit for purpose.

If you have a look at 16 pages, I can ask the right honourable gentleman to rip the honourable gentleman to rip the words out now that are changed. There would only be two pages left. Withdraw the bill! Discuss the contents. But only that far. We are contents. But only that far. We are only that far with the commitments that have been given by the that have been given by the Frontbench on some sort of satisfactory bill which everybody satisfactory bill which everybody could get behind.

I think if we had another hour or two, we could have another hour or two, we could have voted on something which we all would have agreed with. Instead of this hodgepodge of a bill which means nothing to nobody. This might seem terribly cross, and that's because I am. It's because we are discussing you know the lives of millions of disabled people who live in our constituencies. Regardless of what party anybody represents, not one of them voted for their representative to come here and reduce the PIP payments of reduce any payments they receive for disabled people.

And I think we have to remember, it's not just disabled people. It's people who are sick, people who are ill. People who one day have been absolutely fine and because of possibly an industrial accident, because of some sort of illness, the next day they lost their capacity to earn any finances whatsoever. The bill as it stood, the bill as it actually still stands I should say means that there will there won't be a two-tier system. It isn't any good trying to argue the cheating here that there won't be a two-tier system because if somebody with a condition get paid money and support one day to A-level and then the next day because of the date on the calendar, that support is less than the other person.

Now I am happy to give way to anyone to tell me how that isn't a two-tier system. How that isn't unfair. To somebody who might have paid their tax, their national insurance for many many years. People who are sitting at home now who are not ill, who are not poorly, who haven't got a serious condition but I will take you what, come November next year, if this continues the way it is on the face of the bill, come November next year there will be a whole number of people that could fall in the bracket the day after the introduction of the bill.

That cannot be fair man. It just isn't fair. And I'm speaking with good colleagues here. I think we've had a very difficult time. Everybody's had a rough time here over the past few hours. We want to see a resolution here. We want to see... We understand the huge expense involved. We understand the black hole received once we got into power but people didn't vote the Labour Party change to be a change for the worst. They really have some faith you know.

I have some faith in the Labour Party. I've still got a little bit of faith left. It's drained out of us, draining out of my constituents. We need to restore their faith. We need to make sure that people really understand what change we mean and what we meant at the time of the election. Mr, we need to look after people. We need to look after not just the sick and the disabled but everyone else in this country. That's what change means.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I speak as a signatory

18:25

Darren Paffey MP (Southampton Itchen, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I speak as a signatory of the first recent amendment tabled by my honourable friend for Hackney South & Shoreditch because it recognised as many did across this House that there were serious problems with the original version of this bill. Welfare reform that we all believe in is to be fair. It has to be compassionate. It has to be grounded in evidence. And that bill is first published I'm afraid failed on all three counts. So I do want to acknowledge that there have been significant and welcome changes, and genuinely thank ministers for meeting with me and for listening.

This will know that scrapping or reducing PIP for people already in work was always the wrong target. It's one that risks making employment harder not easier. And it is for many disabled people. And it's right that current recipients of PIP, that's over 7,000 and my Southampton Itchen constituency will now be protected. If we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of this recent period, we do need proper process the consultation and coproduction. Ministers have said that they will now do this through the Timms review, and that's the right vehicle.

I welcome another concession around the £300 million of support that is being brought forward. In my view that should have always been front and centre to this. But intentions alone are not enough. And while I welcome the removal of clause 5, introducing no changes before Tim's reports, I am concerned that it remains open concerned that it remains open

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ended. Happy to give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way and I too welcome the commitment that was given from the commitment that was given from the despatch box the removal of clause 5, but I wonder if the honourable gentleman share my hope that when gentleman share my hope that when the Minister sums up this evening he can categorically state that those can categorically state that those people grandfathered in today to help get past that part of the bill was to be grandfathered in without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was to be grandfathered in without clause 5 and whatever comes out of the Timms review so they are not put back into the pool of potentially being reassessed in the future? My honourable friend makes an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend makes an important point that I do hope the Minister will confirm. There are other assurances that many files other assurances that many files would like to hear from the despatch box today. And that includes a box today. And that includes a defined timetable for the report. So I wonder if the Minister would in wrapping up confirm that November 2026 is now no longer a relevant 2026 is now no longer a relevant date at all. I'm glad that we will now avoid the absurd situation of having potentially three different assessment regimes running in assessment regimes running in parallel.

What has been announced will I hope give clarity to will I hope give clarity to claimants and will I hope in good faith demonstrate that the government is serious about doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform properly. If November 2026 is not a hard deadline any more, why are the government needing to push this bill government needing to push this bill through today? Why has it got to get through before the summer recess in order that it can go to Lourdes, in order that they could be in place before November 2026 when that date

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no longer matters? Most of the answer to that question is honestly a matter for the Minister, but actually I don't want to delay the uplift in Universal Credit, so I'm willing to vote that through today. We do understand the catastrophic understand the catastrophic financial mess that we inherited, but we have do- the abstract OBR dogma means nothing to our constituents who have been worried constituents who have been worried these last few weeks. There must be a willingness from government from the despatch box today to rebuild the despatch box today to rebuild that trust.

Reform has to start with the right foundations with investment in the NHS to help people investment in the NHS to help people become work ready, with a renewed access to work scheme, with better access to work scheme, with better jobs and support, with the right to try, and with employee engagement. These are all good measures, all These are all good measures, all have my full support. I welcome as I've just said the operating of Universal Credit, the scrapping of the workplace capability assessment the workplace capability assessment and the additional support that has been promised to those who cannot work and will never be expected to.

These are important steps in restoring fairness and dignity to the social security system. In supporting this bill today, and it was, work out how we got to the situation, but it was a last-minute decision, does not mean I give the government a blank cheque. I, like many across this House working very closely as the next stage unfolds. I still believe that the next stage is rushed, but we are where we are. I will still consider if necessary opposing the bill at third reading if the commitments today are not delivered in the coming week.

That is not a position I enjoy being in, and anyone who thinks it's easy to be in that position doesn't know what they are talking about. In constituencies like mine, in Southampton Itchen we know the difference that a fair and functioning welfare system can make. And the damage that is done when it fails. That's why we have to avoid the same mistakes the last Conservative government did. We all remember, indeed costing our minds further back, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition's litany of failure on Welfare Reform Act, the bedroom tax, a toss doing three assessments.

I accompanied my mum to her reassessment. She was a nervous wreck because that was an absolute disaster of a scheme. We will remember the great sanctioning machine known as the work program. This Labour government has different values to that, and we must demonstrate that. There was a great Commit to a clear timetable for the review, so people can rebuild that trust and what is about to happen. Convince was as a house that the review will be meaningful coproduction.

Set out what employment support will come with that £300 million being brought forward. Because if the bill passes today, by the government's own rushed agenda, in my view, it has one week to get this bill into shape. If we get the system right, we will have a reformed welfare system that delivers on the government's objectives to support people that can work into work. With dignity and prosperity for them. And yes, it will ensure sustainability of the welfare system.

So let's build... I am coming to a conclusion. Let's build a system that is sustainable, but above all, one that is just unfair. -- One of that is just and fair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak today on behalf of the hundreds of desperate people in hundreds of desperate people in Durham and beyond, as well as the organisations that contacted me with concern about this bill, and I'm concern about this bill, and I'm sure many members across the House will agree there is a need to reform the social security system and the social security system and support people to stay in and back into work. Not least those of us in areas that have been decimated over

18:32

Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)

- -

areas that have been decimated over the last three decades. Now, we have been told this review of PIP was to ensure the benefits affair and fit for the future, and the review will be co-produced with disabled people at the organisations that represent them. But what is fair about us being asked to vote on changes when the terms of reference of this review were only announced yesterday? And, Madame Deputy Speaker, I popped out for a banana earlier on and when I came back in, things had changed again.

So, I am more unclear on what I'm voting on. As we have heard, these proposals are so unfair, they create a two- tier system of social security. If you fell ill earlier this year, you have got the support you have always had, but Woebot tied those people that will fall ill later this year, next year, how can we be asked to vote for a system that, rather than penalising everyone for being ill, has now been treated to only penalised people based on when they got ill or in fact when they get more ill, anyone reporting the change in circumstances will be caught up in these changes.

At every organisation I have spoken to, including at my recent expert roundtable event in Durham, agrees that the changes to PIP will have a bigger impact on the north-eastern almost any other region in the country. This isn't A-level playing field, the scale of ill-health in the North is 50% higher than a South. The north-east has a higher rate of people living with a The Ageing and the North Report, recently published by the North Health Science Alliance and Equity North suggests that in the south, people leaving the job market later on in life overwhelmingly retire.

In the North they leave due to ill health. So, the impact that these changes will have on individuals, communities, and the economy in the north-east are huge, regardless of any recent concessions. And again, we are being asked to vote on proposals before any meaningful consultation with disability charities and organisations that have taken place. And without reasonable impact assessment being carried out. And let's remember, PIP is an in work benefit. For many, it provides them with the support they need to actually stay and work.

If they are caught up the changes or claim after they have been introduced, it would be much harder for them to stay in work. If we vote for this bill, we will be knowingly leaving vulnerable people without the support they need to live dignified independent lives free from poverty. When we should be supporting and championing the rights of disabled people, their carers and their families. And as a parent, of my daughter, Maria, who lived her life with a severe disability, I empathise with all of those who are unlikely to undertake meaningful or secure employment, because of their disability.

And experience the dignity that so many people in work do experience. But surely, just because someone cannot contribute economically to society, they still deserve dignity, still deserve to be treated with respect, and feel of value in society, no matter how they are able to contribute. When I joined the Labour Party 30 years ago, Debbie on the side of the poor and the weak, this bill penalises those with the weakest shoulders. That is not what I was selected for and not what this Labour government was elected for.

So, I plead with colleagues again, because this process, start again, and do it the right way, and do it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Labour way. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to be called in this debate. I think every member of this House will agree that welfare this House will agree that welfare needs reform. I think about the constituent that was told in a PIP constituent that was told in a PIP assessment, who was asked how long

18:37

Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)

- -

assessment, who was asked how long have they been autistic. I think about other stories that are close to here, which I cannot repeat, because they are not my stories alone to tell. The words come easily, the path to reform is harder. And I think a lot of us have walked that hard path in recent weeks. I have heard, we have all heard, many points made in this debate and I would just like, in the short time available, to respond to some of them.

A number of members have said, and I think sincerely suggested, that there is something inherently wrong about creating a system where people's treatment depends on the date of application. depends on the date of application. But I ask how people in this chamber who have been a negotiator or trade union member, have voted for an agreement that involved red band in a particular rate of pay. I think every representative of every party that has served in government has passed into legislation cut off points.

I remember leaving the school around the time the statement system in special educational needs started to be phased out, in favour of EHCPs and those consequences are with us to this day. I want to respond as well to a point made by the honourable member for Bradford East, when he said that we are being asked to place trust in ministers, and in particular, the right honourable member, the disability Minister. And over the course of many discussions in recent weeks, I have to say that I do have that trust.

And I know like many members, I do have that personal trust and I know that review is now going to be co-produced with disabled people and disabled people's organisations. It is a real and material change. Madame Deputy Speaker, in this current age of snap judgements, when we are expected to respond immediately to every manner of change, and when politics in public is rewarded more highly than the politics carried out in private. The party system perhaps is not in a good state of repute.

But I know that many members, and I am one of them, have wrestled with their individual concerns. And that desire to have collective discipline, without which there is no party and no program and nothing will ever get done. These are good and honourable principles to have. They must be moderated by willingness to listen and however it came about, people have listened today. The changes that have been made, ministers and officials will know, have been the subject of many long, and at times difficult conversations.

But you have a bill in front of us now which remove that problem, which was critical to many of us, a change beginning next November, before that review was completed. It has been addressed. We are in the business of making material change for the people we represent and I think about the 10,037 PIP recipients in my constituency, perhaps a thousand DLA recipients more, and thousands more family members, who will have the ease of mind that the changes we have made in this place means that their income and security in life is being protected.

Now, this bill has still some way to go over the course still some way to go over the course of the next week. We must recognise progress when it has happened. I want to thank everyone in my constituency who has contacted me and taken the time to meet in all those discussions, in officials with ministers. All those presentations were helpful, they did make a difference, I am so grateful, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone who shared their story and I will be voting for this bill tonight. We have run out of time, I call the shadow minister.

18:41

Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the shadow minister. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. This has been an extraordinary afternoon in this chamber. Listening afternoon in this chamber. Listening to this debate, surely all of us have been moved by the stories we have heard of honourable members own experiences, the experience of their families and loved ones and constituents. Of how the welfare system has served its vital purpose in providing a safety net in time is a desperate -- In times of desperate need, where ill-health made it impossible for them to McKenzie meet on their own.

It is clear, Madame Deputy Speaker, that there is a broad consensus across the House that the welfare system needs reform. There has also been a consensus that what we were debating today was a bad bill. It was a rushed and chaotic compromise that would harm disabled people, create a two-tier benefit system and barely make a dent in the overall welfare bill. How can anyone justify voting for something better would not make a single disabled person's life better? It is clear that many, many members couldn't, and I say it was a bad bill.

Because while we have been here debating it, the bill has more or less disintegrated. Less than two hours ago, the Social Security Minister told us, in an unprecedented intervention, that clause five of the bill is to be removed at the committee stage, that takes up all the changes to Personal Independence Payment's and with it, almost the entirety of the savings in the bill. Describing this as chaos now feels like an understatement. Here we have a government with a super majority, voted in on a manifesto for change, a welfare system which everyone agrees needs reform command public finances which simply must be brought under control, but the government is now serving up a bill with next to nothing in it.

They already you turned once, it seems they cannot even deliver a U-turn. The Prime Minister told the country that he was distracted at NATO, he flew home on Thursday to sort the problem out. This is what sorting it out looks like. Once again, his calamitous negotiations are letting the country down. Last week we offered him help in the national interest, set out three tests he would need to meet for our support on welfare. The first was that the welfare bill must come down, all of us know people whose lives would not be possible without the help our welfare system provides, each and everyone of us in this chamber once a welfare system which is therefore those who need it, but the fact is that if the welfare bill spirals out of control, it was that support in jeopardy.

-- It puts that support in jeopardy, but this bill makes no meaningful changes in the system we all agree isn't working. It will now save I reckon less than a billion a minimum service bill, raising to nearly 100 billion by the end of the decade, this is a total dereliction of duty by a government that claims to want welfare reform and physical discipline. Secondly, we said we would support plans to get people into work but this bill will not help a single person into work.

Ministers have said trust us, employment support is coming, but why would anyone trust this government on jobs when 100,000 were lost in May alone? And none of us have actually seen the government's plan to get more disabled people into work, apart from new redtape, making it more difficult to hire people, I don't think there is one. And thirdly, we said we must not have more tax rises in the autumn, given the Chancellor had already committed to this, should have been the simplest of those three conditions to agree to, but now, this desperate climbdown blows an even bigger hole in her budget.

She is pushing us into a doom loop of higher taxes, fewer jobs, more welfare, and higher taxes. At this rate, the time is coming when our constituents will not even have a welfare system to call on in times of trouble. Madame Deputy Speaker, what is there left for us to vote for or against this evening? All of us in this House know that welfare needs reform. All of us in the House want to see more people helped into work and all of us in this House will, surely most of us at least, recognise the country must live within its means.

The remnants of this Bilbo manifestly achieve none this Bilbo manifestly achieve none of this. -- This bill well manifestly. The purpose it will now service to etch forever into the statute book at the moment when at this government totally lost this government totally lost

18:46

Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)

- -

19:00

Division

19:30

Petitions

Council's intentions to tackle speeding on the main rate was admirable, afraid it's unfortunately diverted the problem to the diverted the problem to the sliproad. This has made life many of my constituents a misery with resident Helen Rogers telling me that inconsiderate selfish drivers that inconsiderate selfish drivers are leaving locals intimidated and frightened for their safety. So let us not wait until there is a fatality. We must take action fatality. We must take action immediately. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to work with Solihull Council to implement traffic coming measures on the sliproad of Water Orton Road following a spate of road traffic incidents and the petitioners remain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition, traffic Petition, traffic calming measures on the sliproad of Water

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measures on the sliproad of Water I beg to move this has to now adjourn.

19:31

Adjournment: Infant feeding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn. I call Jess Brown-Fuller on

19:31

Petitions

adjourn. I call Jess Brown-Fuller on infant feeding. Jess Brown-Fuller.

19:31

Adjournment: Infant feeding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infant feeding. Jess Brown-Fuller. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to bring this adjournment debate to the chamber on a topic close to my heart, and I a topic close to my heart, and I refer members to my register interest as the Chair of an APPG on interest as the Chair of an APPG on infant feeding, and I'm pleased to see the Minister in her place and look forward to her response on look forward to her response on behalf of the government, just days before the long-awaited 10 year plan for the NHS.

When the Secretary of State promised to create a healthier generation ever, it was a bold and admirable ambition and certainly one I share with her. Every child

19:31

Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)

- -

19:55

Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)

- -

can access their support. We are building on family hubs and staff of building on family hubs and staff of life program and investing in this program with 18.5 million this year. To improve infant feeding support across 75 local authorities in England. Staff alive services help England. Staff alive services help parents to access support when they need it and in a location that suits them, whether that's the home, them, whether that's the home, family hub, in a hospital setting or through some of the many voluntary sector organisations that have been sector organisations that have been referred to today.

And local authorities are working with partners to embed local infant partners to embed local infant feeding strategies, joining of services for seamless support and tailoring them to their community. tailoring them to their community. With both universal and targeted With both universal and targeted support. We are building up the workforce, investing infant feeding specialists, and delivering high quality training and expanding networks of peer supporters. Funding networks of peer supporters. Funding is also helping to train staff to identify complex needs early such as identify complex needs early such as tongue time and to offer timely support.

And while long-term evaluation is needed to understand the full impact of the program, some promising findings are emerging, for promising findings are emerging, for example Coventry suggest that their ambitious multilayered integrated infant feeding plants have led to increased breastfeeding rates. And local health visitor data shows an increase breastfeeding six-day weeks from 51% to 57% in just 18 months. We also helping families across the UK to access breastfeeding support 24 hours a day through the national breastfeeding helpline.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She highlights in brilliant examples that are gold standard in care, but she recognise that the process the government is currently undertaking with only half local authorities being funded means we authorities being funded means we still end up with a patchwork level of cover for support for new mothers, and they don't know where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mothers, and they don't know where they are meant to go because it's different when they cross a county border. I think of her intervention, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think of her intervention, and through the family hub, surface and the support for staff alive, that is very much targeted, however through very much targeted, however through the universal health visiting offer, through the national breastfeeding helpline, we do aim to be able to helpline, we do aim to be able to offer all women breastfeeding the support that they need to do so. In terms of parental leave, which has terms of parental leave, which has been touched upon, we note that supporting parents goes beyond services, returning to work and influence ouch families choose to feed their babies.

And in the Plan feed their babies. And in the Plan to Make Work Pay with committee to review of the parental leave system, which is the honourable member which is the honourable member mentioned was launched the DPT commit about the Business and Trade launched that review into parental leave in the chamber today. And we are delighted to see that come forward. She did touch upon formula feeding and have spoken a lot about us feeding but we absolutely recognise the families cannot, when they can't or choose not to breastfeed, it's vital they get formula that is safe, literacy complete and affordable.

Infant formula regulations and CMA recommendations are important, but we know many families are struggling to afford infant formula. We welcome the report from the CMA into the UK infant and follow-on formula milk. It's highlighted some of the issues that the honourable member raised herself. Particularly noting that families rely on brand reputation and price as a proxy for quality. Often choosing more expensive products. However, specific regulations require all infant formula to comply with robust nutritional compositional standards. So all infant formula sold on the UK market meets the nutritional needs of babies regardless of the price and brand.

The CMA has made 11 recommendations to government with four aims to eliminate round influence and health care settings providing better information for parents in retail settings, strengthening labelling and advertising rules and ensuring effective enforcement of regulations. The government is supportive of what the CMA is trying to achieve and we want parents to be confident to choose lower-priced products and the manufacturers and retailers to compete more on price. The CMA recommendations are UK-wide and so we are considering them alongside colleagues in the devolved governments and aim to have a UK- wide response available as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I thank the honourable member for raising this important matter. The government is committed to giving children the best start in life. We don't underestimate the challenge to get this right families. We will continue to strengthen key services built on good practice, and identify where we can the greatest impact for families. I can also confirm that tomorrow I will be meeting myself with the APPG for babies and to look forward to discussing these issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further with them. The question is this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes "No." The ayes have it, the ayes

20:05

Presentation of Bills

20:05

Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)

- -

20:05

Presentation of Bills

20:05

Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)

- -

20:05

Presentation of Bills

20:05

Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)

- -

20:05

Presentation of Bills

House House of House of Commons House of Commons - House of Commons - 1 House of Commons - 1 July House of Commons - 1 July 2025.

20:30

Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)

- -

20:30

Presentation of Bills

20:32

Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)

- -

20:32

Presentation of Bills

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page