Commons Chamber

Wednesday 9th July 2025

(began 4 hours, 34 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
Christine Jardine Portrait Christine Jardine MP (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to welcome good news for Ferguson Marine this morning. Scottish Liberal Democrats are good funding for keep objects across Scotland in last year's budget negotiations including a pavilion in Edinburgh which is so important to my constituents in Edinburgh West. We welcome the additional funding as part of the Spending Review to help projects like this. Because almost two decades of SNP mismanagement has left our health service in dire need of investment, does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP should invest this wisely in GPs, dentists, and care, so our constituents can seem the same focus on innovation and health as was announced by the UK government last week? To Mr Speaker, the honourable Lady mentions a good point about the Lady mentions a good point about the Pavilion in Edinburgh which is symptomatic of the whole SNP symptomatic of the whole SNP approach which is promised this many times, and they will undoubtedly times, and they will undoubtedly make the same promises and pledges make the same promises and pledges next year.

One in six Scottish people are stuck on an NHS waiting list, an app that is years behind the rest of the UK we have the worst cancer waiting times on record. So I'm sure the honourable lady and millions of other Scottish people millions of other Scottish people will know the SNP have failed the NHS. If they knew how to fix it they would have done it by now. would have done it by now.
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
None Portrait Q6. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers of 16 April 2025 on women in Scotland. (905054)
-

approach. The latest figures show 40% of the value of APR went to just 7% of climates. That is neither fair nor sustainable.
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
None Portrait Prime Minister's Question Time
-

We now come to prime ministers questions.
12:01
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Question number one Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker on Monday we mark the 20th anniversary of the mark the 20th anniversary of the despicable terrorist attacks on 7/7. despicable terrorist attacks on 7/7. The painful memories of that dark day are deeply ingrained. 52 people were murdered, and many more were murdered, and many more injured. We thank our emergency services who ran towards danger with services who ran towards danger with true bravery and send our deepest condolences to the victims, the survivors, Brive, and all those survivors, Brive, and all those forever affected by that appalling forever affected by that appalling day.

May I also extend our deepest condolences to the family and for of condolences to the family and for of Lord Tebbit. We remember his profound courage in the face of profound courage in the face of terrorism, and a fierce devotion to his wife, Margaret. May he rest in his wife, Margaret. May he rest in peace. Mr Speaker we also mark the 30th anniversary of the genocide of 30th anniversary of the genocide of Srebrenica. We remember those lost and we redouble our efforts to fight and we redouble our efforts to fight hatred and intolerance.

Mr Speaker and delighted to welcome President Macron to the United Kingdom. Our relationship has never been stronger stop we are focused on tough new tactics to tackle illegal migration, major economic investment to create jobs, and leading allies to support Ukraine. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:26
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
I join him in his thanks to the veterans who are here with us today and extended thanks to all vectors. and extended thanks to all vectors. He notes that this is serious. The scheme that was set up by the party opposite had issues, and he knows it. It was not... It would have meant immunity from prosecution for those who committed the most appalling terrorist crimes and that is why it did not have support from communities or any political party in Northern Ireland and that is among the reasons why it was found to be unlawful and so we must get this right.

We do not get there by cheapening the debate. It's not about political point scoring. I worked in Northern Ireland and spoke to many people affected and I know that we must get this right and I want us to do it together in the House if you possibly can, because it matters. It must be done in a serious way, to address the matters of the past, of course, in a way to support victims and survivors and that is the key test because without the support of victims and survivors, it is very hard to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland.

That is why we have to work in the way that we are doing. In advance of this, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to engage with veterans to ensure that the legacy findings are fair and proportionate and I will continue to work with him and others in the House because the most important thing is not scoring points but getting it right.
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown Court Bench Division and related sentencing changes
-

stated. It is now the record. Let us move on now. We come to the Urgent Question. Shadow Secretary of State Robert Jenrick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict jury trial
12:42
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
on her plans to restrict jury trial through the creation of a Crown Court bench division and related sentencing changes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, this government inherited a justice system in inherited a justice system in crisis. With record and rising backlogs in our criminal courts leaving victims in limbo waiting to see justice done. For this reason, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a look at the criminal code. We are grateful to him for all his work. His report confirms that the system that we confirms that the system that we inherited is broken.

And that if we do nothing it will collapse. We welcome the ambitious welcome the ambitious recommendations he put forward and agree that a crisis on this scale agree that a crisis on this scale requires bold action. We must consider any measures that will put our courts on a more stable and sustainable footing. Victims and the sustainable footing. Victims and the public deserve swifter justice and a court system that they can have confidence in. We will consider the recommendations on jury trials along with everything else carefully.

Before providing a formal response Before providing a formal response to Parliament. And we will do so in the autumn. Jury trials are and will remain a cornerstone of British justice, and will remain in place for the most serious cases. However, justice delayed is justice denied. The system was not designed for a scenario where there are tens of thousands of victims waiting years for justice. The Lord Chancellor and this government is committed to turning the tide on the Crown Court backlog by the end of this Parliament and creating a sustainable justice system fit for the 21st-century.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker all of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is one pretends that this is straightforward. This government has made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and is at a record high, and exhilarating. 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson's every month. Sir Brian Leveson's review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court must increase the number of court sitting days, and we thank you for his work and welcome any of his recommendations.

However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount for those convicted of crimes like burglary and stalking. crimes like burglary and stalking. This could see criminals serve as little as 1/5 of their sentence when combined with the gawker review. 20% of a sentence is served, is that of a sentence is served, is that justice for victims? Out-of-court settlement for drug dealers and thieves meaning they won't even get thieves meaning they won't even get thieves meaning they won't even get a criminal record.

It makes a mockery of the Criminal Justice Bill justice concerning is the proposal to cut jury trials. The report admits this will only have limited effect, it will save £31 million, 0.2% of the department budget. As the report says, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether. Jury trials
12:46
12:46
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country's rejection of one of our country's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rejection of one of our country's What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It's extraordinary the shadow justice secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency. Where was it in the last 14 years? The so-called party of law and order that allowed two things to happen, first taking the prison system to the brink of collapse, letting down the public and victims, soft on crime and law and order. Secondly, a loving the backlogs in Crown Courts to run out of control and reach record highs.

They did nothing in 14 years. Let me explain the difference with the government who is tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own, so David Gauke, to give us the Sentencing Review and Sir Brian Leveson I set out his recommendations today. We will not give the response because they demand it. We will listen to serious and careful analysis and provide the formal response to the House in the autumn but we are not delaying and waiting, but investing in the system.

To take up a challenge about what was said by the Lady Chief Justice we've already done what they failed to do with more sitting days, record levels, up from 40 so-called record levels, up from 40 so-called party of -- up from 40 so-called party of law not offered. It is not just about adding more sitting days. As Sir Brian Leveson tells us, we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis. We must build system capacity with more judges, prosecutors, court cases.

Of course, you have to invest in the system. That is what the government is doing and we are putting an additional £450 million additional into quotes that what the party opposite offered because we are laser focused on providing swifter justice for victims and restoring public confidence in the justice system which was left to rack and ruin by the party opposite. He has jumped the gun. We have been clear. We will consider the careful and detailed report of Sir Brian Leveson, listen to victims, listen to barristers and judges who do an exceptional job, and we will do what it takes to look at a victim of red, who, today, if she reports a rate of serious crime, is being told she will have to wait for her day in court.

-- rape. That is unacceptable and that is why we will do whatever it takes with the seriousness that the other side simply failed to do.
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:30
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:38
Chris Bloore Portrait Chris Bloore MP (Redditch, Labour)
-
-
And Q. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a built to require schools to maintain an allergy management policy to require schools to hold the supply of juggling water injections for treating allergic reactions -- adrenaline injections. I'm grateful for the Minister for being in his place and his constant dialogue on this issue but as he knows, I'm not the first to raise the inadequacies of our current laws protecting children with allergies in schools. Many Members across this House has spoken on the issue yet horrific incidents continue.

Allergies are something of a sick spirit. One in three people in the UK lives with an allergic disease. Hospital admissions have risen and 50% of children are affected by at least one urgent condition. Every year approximately, 42,000 new cases require care. Studies show incidents of food allergies in England no double between 2008 and 2018, with the prevalence of 4% among preschool children. At school, food and allergies affects around two children in every classroom. Children spend significant time of their lives at school and 80% of food allergy reaction including first-time anaphylactic actions.

Many children who had prior reactions are not prescribed in auto-injector. So relying solely on them carrying it is dangerous. With an ever-growing number of children requiring allergy care, it is ever more and vital that the place where we entrust our children as a safe environment but too often it is not. And deputy speaker, I cannot compare the pain that some families have had to endure because they have lost a child. It is agreed as a father that I can't ever hope to experience but I do know that when current guidance and legislation allows a patchwork of different standards in our schools, we can and must do better.

There is a glaring lack of consistency across schools in the UK regarding allergy management. There's a 50-50 chance school that your child goes to would have a spare adrenaline auto-injectors pen available stock there is a 55% chance the training has been provided to staff and managing allergies in school or on trips, and one in four chance that staff had no training on how to identify allergy symptoms or what to do in an emergency. Furthermore there's one in six chance school does not have an individual plan for peoples with allergies and have a 13 transmit school does not have an allergy policy.

With the prevalence of allergies rising, and a steep increase in hospitalisations due to allergic reactions, we must act to change and unacceptable". School staff deserve to know how to prevent allergic reactions and be prepared to manage them if an incident occurs. Children deserve to learn in a safe and inclusive environment and parents deserve the confidence to send their children to school knowing adequate measures are in place. The Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill would require all schools to have an allergy policy in place.

Currently 70% of schools lack basic protections and one in three schools have no allergy policy in place. Reducing these policies would create a whole school approach to allergy safety, making it everyone's responsible tea to embed good allergy practices and know their role in protecting children. This will include how to manage allergies on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, grounds and dining rooms, ensuring children with allergies are not excluded and supported in an inclusive school environment. Without these policies, children with allergies often miss out on opportunities.

Research foundation found 70% of parents reported that allergic child to school due to their allergy, sometimes driven by anxiety. Children should never miss learning opportunities out of fear and this bill can help change that. Alongside allergy policies, the bill requires allergy training for school staff, enabling them to create a safe environment. Research shows 60%, 70% and school staff have not received any allergy awareness training. The bill would provide guidance on adapting class practices, including safe activities, understanding the mental health impact of food allergies and how to respond in those emergencies.

The bill also mandates that schools can have spare auto injector so that staff have the medication and training to take subduction. When every second counts, this simple step could be life-saving. Auto- injector should be treated like defibrillators. They should be accessible and accompanied by a trained member of staff. Although there are examples of good practice without a national framework, it is a postcode lottery when a child, whether a child will attend the school with adequate training policies and vital medication.

This inequality leads to missed school days, unnecessary emergency visits, bullying and lower attainment. Providing spare pens and policies that every school removes the tree. Safety should not depend on a child's location or their families income. Current legislation is insufficient. Schools in England follow statutory guidance such as supporting pupils with medical conditions at school and the early years foundation stage, but neither explicitly and dates safeguards for peoples with allergies. The Benedict Blythe foundation highlights this is a lack of clear expectation, leading to a wide variation of allergy safety across this country.

The three pillars of this bill, staff training, allergy policies, and spare adrenaline auto-injectors, can save lives. These recommendations come from corners with sports after tragic incidents. We must learn and feel these gaps to create a safe expense for children. Too many teachers and acknowledge they need, don't have the support they deserve, and too many children allergies are still not offered a safe fit for purpose environment to learn. I hope today after an off a lot of talking, we can get on with the doing.

-- After an awful lot of doing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. The ayes have it, bring in the bill. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. He will prepare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Chris Bloore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schools Schools (Allergy Schools (Allergy Safety) Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill. Second reading, what day? Second reading, what day? Second reading, what day? Sean number two on property assets acceptance built Lords minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", Of the opinion, say, "Aye", Of the contrary, "No", I think The "Ayes" contrary, "No", I think The "Ayes" of it. The "Ayes" have it. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
13:46
13:47
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
will be convenient to the existing bill and all the amendments to the bill selected. I call Sian Berry to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment 39. Thank you, Madam Chair. When one in five people received the in five people received the universal payment and disability payments that have used a food bank payments that have used a food bank in the last five months, the disability premium laid out by scope disability premium laid out by scope has reached £1095 per month here in Parliament we must do better for this bill before us today. Madam this bill before us today. Madam Chair, when the pathways to the paper has terrified so many of our constituents, when the basic rate of Universal Credit cannot cover the Universal Credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better and this bill we must do better and this bill before us today.

Madam Chair, when before us today. Madam Chair, when the orders of magnitude away from the tough to assist disabled people, when we have such a deeply unequal when we have such a deeply unequal society already and a wealth tax with no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament, we must do better in in Parliament, we must do better in this bill before us today. From the Green Papers to where we are now, Green Papers to where we are now, the government's behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think that you should be ashamed and think that you should be ashamed and apologise.

My constituents and the people that love and care for them have been subjected to chaos, have been subjected to chaos, confusion, and indignity step and instead of making improvements with careful consideration to what is a compact and treacherous benefit system, the Government has rushed to fit the imperatives of the budget table, bypassing evidence gathering and scrutiny in this House and further limiting the power of The Other Place by making this a Money bills.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, the trim and as a fit of people, power, bravery from people opposite has won last-minute opposite has won last-minute concessions for claimants currently, but still the Government should scrap this unfair and harmful scrap this unfair and harmful legislation due to the harm it would do to future people who find themselves in need of support. This themselves in need of support. This bill is not a tough decision, it is bill is not a tough decision, it is the wrong decision.

Here in Parliament, we must do better than this bill before us today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I commend the honourable lady for the points she brings forward for the points she brings forward and I think that the day is probably the crux of where we are in the bill and does the Noble Lady accept that and does the Noble Lady accept that the reason people get more money when they qualify for the health element of Universal Credit as because illness means more because illness means more expenditure, perhaps a certain diet or the need for a warmer home and does the honourable lady not then accept that to have that amount on accept that to have that amount on to 270 a month would definitely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 270 a month would definitely affect the most vulnerable people, the very people the honourable lady says they are trying to help. I think the honourable member for giving those examples of the biting giving those examples of the biting things that they are used for and why they are so necessary not to cut them. My amendment 39 affects clause 1. The only at all positive clause on the belt as it stands now. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the allowance of Universal Credit and beyond inflation by 2.3% in the yes.April 26, writing to 2029.

My amendment quite implicitly uplift percentage of 4.8% the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of Universal Credit is much needed, setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, Joseph Rowntree Foundation says the basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills, and trouble. It does not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need. My assessment 39 goes some way towards this, and the joint briefing to MPs from service providers and disabled People's groups highlights it in its recommendations.

Now I realise that the question on many people's minds at this moment is how can the country pay for this boost to Universal Credit and that removal of cuts to PIP. The answer lies with the Chancellor. Something that my green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since they introduced the Green Papers. On that day, 18 March, I asked why impoverishing disabled people to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax and the honourable member for Chislehurst, the honourable member from Liverpool and the honourable member for West Derby also spoke up for that same measure also spoke up for that same measure Honourable Members have asked these questions of the House and it is not just MPs suggesting this and it is not just charities like Oxfam, the equality trust, it is not just campaigners like tax justice UK.

And it is not just patriotic millionaires who say they're holding shows 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Now, it is also to former leaders of the Labour Party who are now talking about this as a serious option. There are, I should say, other ways to look at taxing unearned wealth as a wider package than the simple proposal that is making unlikely allies of millionaires and local leaders, but when Ferrer taxes on assets, that absolutely can and should work for the nation, are should work for the nation, are finally being put into the budget, I think that the view of this House is clear, that the cuts target and the spreadsheet for the Department for Work and Pensions should be the first to go, including the two-child benefit cap as well.

So, that is how we should be for the improvements needed to this bill. I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a great believer in a wealth tax rather than taking money from disabled people. Simple as, disabled people. Simple as, bottomline. My honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bottomline. My honourable friend will they see what the wealth tax would look like as far as the Green Party is concerned? I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for that question. Indeed, I have referred to the patriotic millionaires and they have done some millionaires and they have done some extensive work on this with their considerable resources and they have considerable resources and they have set out a 2% wealth tax on people with more than £10 million in with more than £10 million in wealth. They have also piled this with the general public and found 75% of the general public hugely 75% of the general public hugely support this measure as well, not just as an alternative to cuts to just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but also as a general principle.

Madam Chair, clause 1, principle. Madam Chair, clause 1, would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39 and this change alone would not make it a change alone would not make it a build up this House should pass and removing clause 5 is involved in the Government proposes will not be enough either for this House to enough either for this House to pass. Clause 2 even once amended by the Government would cut in half the health element of Universal Credit for nine in turn you claimants and I will speak later about the criteria for those conditions, so without amendment to a proposed by the honourable member for Leeds East, clause 2 should be removed from the bill.

Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of Universal Credit for the rest of the Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the bill. Clause 2 removed from clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits and so these should be removed from the bill as my amendment 14. Madam Chair, what I am saying is that the bill consists of a much improved one and clause 2 would almost be a build at the House in good conscience could pass and we do have the choice to grant such a bill today.

And as well as these changes amendment like amendment 12, the honourable member, there are some new clauses that would help make it even more fit for purpose. We have brought the vital principle that we send for today is that any policy changes about disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day that this was published I also raised coproduction of the Secretary of State and this has been talked about by many members, the experience of coproducing policy and we talked about the Government thanks to strong campaigners from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other MPs. I will happily give way. I agree with the member statement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the member statement in regards to that and regards to any statement taking this forward, any statement taking this forward, but with the member agree with me that it is crucial that young people are also cleared because of the conditions that they face as well, conditions that they face as well, mostly the challenge when they move to the transition there that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister still has. I am grateful for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for that intervention, and, indeed, when I have gathered together young people in my own constituency, the issues in my own constituency, the issues that they face is that there voices must be heard, so now the Government has said it is committed to has said it is committed to coproduce the review with disabled people and disabled People's organisation. The disabled people's organisations are Disability Rights organisations are Disability Rights UK have told us that such promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick box exercise, production in name only and that the governance original plans are the inevitable original plans are the inevitable results, that is why I have signed new clause 8 from the honourable member as well as new clause 11 from member as well as new clause 11 from the honourable member from Penistone first and if clause 2 in its schedule remains in the severe conditions criteria simply cannot conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written.

It appears either Government meant to exclude people with fluctuating buy from conditions like Parkinson's or the universal element or Ministers completely overlooked this when pushing on of this through. I say that the criteria that we withdraw support from people with these supports are unassertive, and that is why I have signed amendment 38 and amendment 17 from the honourable member from Dunfermline. The severe conditions criteria also say any diagnosis must be made in the NHS, which, again, seems either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction because I have also signed amendment 33 from the honourable member.

To close, today, I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today, so that many of our constituents remain scared by the bill. Bread from the date of the careless release of the Green Papers, with terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto. They have been forced into a cruel limbo, and it is shameful that this Government has chosen this path, and Labour Government showing itself far more willing to punish disabled people and as the most wealthy to shoulder the burden, fair public spending on real, essential security.

And I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on this bill to date. Action by disabled people and allies has forced MPs to listen and take action and forced this Government to withdraw the most brutal powers, but still the bill before us today remains an acceptable and I look forward to hearing much since, including the United Nations has told us from that many Honourable Members in this debate sharing those values. My green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise this bill to make it do good, not harm, and, ultimately, if not to see it through.

And I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this has all become. Amendment 39 proposed close one as on the amendment paper, the question is that the amendment be
13:58
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

made and I called the chairman of the Select Committee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to my amendment and the amendments associated with it, but before I get into the substance of it, I would like to thank the build committee clerks for their invaluable advice for the amendment drafting expertise as well. But could I also thank the dozens of disabled people, their organisations, disability charities, academics, and think tanks, the provided evidence to the pension Select Committee to work inquiry? And, of course, I would like also to acknowledge the clerk's team and particularly the deputy Clerk that has led that inquiry.

And the importance of select committees in approving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be underestimated. As I said last week, there is general recognition in the social security system that it needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts in support to vulnerable people will stop there are many positive measures and pathways to get Britain working which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people's lives, helping people into work and staying in work.

But there is also evidence of the impact of other Government departments on getting and keeping Britain working. For example, increasing NHS capacity and funding allocation to areas of high need will have the direct and positive impact on health status. And the participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in these areas. The 2018 health rebels report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting this in areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3%, and increase productivity by 13.2 billion per year.

And although we have launched the NHS firm and many positive measures in this comedy additional targeted NHS capacity ends April next year. Similarly, the Charlie Mayfield Review on keeping Britain working will hopefully set out how we can realign our labour market to address the disability employment gap, including retaining skilled workers who become sick or disabled, and that will not be published until the autumn, later this year. It will take a lot longer than six months to make the cultural changes needed to address the inequalities in employment many disabled people For each disability confident role there are currently 121 people on incapacity benefit.

More affluent areas, more jobs available, but in deprived from industrial areas it is much worse, with one job for 333 disabled people. That is why my amendment to, B, and associated amendments are seeking to delay the introduction of changes you see health from April 26 to November 2026. At a cost of £141 million. That would be in terms of the reduction in savings that the government has previously estimated for. This is to allow for the NHS capacity to wrap up and to ensure funding follows health need, so people with newly acquired conditions or impairments can receive early treatment, a better aligned labour market that will enable them to return to.

Without this, there is the risk that 45,000 more newly disabled people and their children will be pushed into poverty. I acknowledge and thank the government for the concessions they made over the last couple of weeks and which allowed many of us to support this bill at second reading. Just to clarify, these concessions include the protection of existing PIP claimants and that removal of the reference for new PIP claimant needing to achieve four point of the assessment through the deletion of clause 5, that is the government amendment.

Instead, from November 2026, new claimants will take part in a new assessment, an outcome from the dim split review which will coproduce with disabled people and their organisations -- Mr Timms PIP review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her. One of the things I get on other MPs get is the issue of get on other MPs get is the issue of decisions made on PIP and Universal Credit applications, and ESA applications. They tell me that applications. They tell me that there is a harshness and how the decision is made. Does she share my concern, my concern is that those concern, my concern is that those harsh decisions should have experts harsh decisions should have experts looking at them and should be passionate and understanding.

Does she agree? That is a sort of system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she agree? That is a sort of system we need from the people we represent. I am grateful to my honourable friend for his intervention. I do agree we need a more compassionate system. But I also believe that we system. But I also believe that we need to have a system that is co- produced by the people at actually going to be affected by a new going to be affected by a new assessment process. So I think yes, a more compassionate system but I think that will be built in by the people that undertake the coproduction of that new assessment.

If I could continue, I was disappointed that the government did not take the opportunity to set out the coproduction of the review by the coproduction of the review by putting it on the face of the bill. And I hope the Minister can address that in his remarks. As such, I'm supporting new clause 11 in the name of my honourable friend the member for Preston and Stockton. In addition, the government has agreed to protect people on you see health with severe conditions or terminal diagnosis, both existing and new claimants, and assure in wards will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be updated annually in real terms. I'm very grateful to the honourable lady and like her are honourable lady and like her are welcome some of the concessions that welcome some of the concessions that were given at the last minute last week. But does she not share my concerns, in particular the point of concerns, in particular the point of RUC health, that it is still £2 billion in costs that will still billion in costs that will still impact over 700,000 people, meaning impact over 700,000 people, meaning they will get 3,000 less, and this is some of the most vulnerable people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. Let us be clear, this is applying to particular newly acquired conditions and my argument is, by delaying it, we can ensure that delaying it, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability, or a condition, can disability, or a condition, can receive treatment and care quickly, if we ensure that the NHS ramps up if we ensure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. So that's my argument. I don't think it's ideal argument. I don't think it's ideal but I think it is a reasonable compromise which I hope the government will listen to.

Let me government will listen to. Let me continue. Both in terms of, in terms of severe conditions, people with new and existing severe conditions, will be protected and this is covered in government amends two and New Cross one. There was significant evidence of the potential harm for disabled people that would have experienced if the bill had remained in its previous form. The conditions that were made over the last couple of weeks that concessions to track have addressed that and I applaud the government for that.

It was definitely the right thing to do. When this evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer-term, it is right that we think again and I do urge the government to consider my amendments. There is also strong evidence that the government will make savings in Social Security spending in the long-term, in terms of caseloads, case offloads, will be achieved naturally as I've mentioned before, in terms of the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market, and of course the bringing forward of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employment support. Thank you. Thank you, it's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, it's a pleasure to take part in this debate. The bill, as you know, is being rushed through as you know, is being rushed through by a Labour government desperate to paper over cracks of an economy paper over cracks of an economy which it itself has brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions coming before the House at questions coming before the House at the moment results from that economic flatlining and the flailing
14:08
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
economic flatlining and the flailing of a government which costs around desperately to see how it can get itself offered economic hook. It simply, this bill is unaffordable. Prime Minister's latest concessions to his unruly and now happy and victorious backbenchers has left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug and this inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families already feeling the pinch. And far too few of those voices will be heard today, too often in this house, the whole debate is consumed with how more spending is a better thing, how it can always be afforded and no responsible decisions need to be made.

That was the decision of the backbenchers of the party opposite. Control of one of the flagships of this government's agenda, and leaves the government now like some great massively endowed, as it is, with Members of Parliament, like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, sitting listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along. And as we know, in this chamber, the next wave that comes along and profits from the left, this Labour government is all too often the honourable lady who I'm happy to give way to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. I hope he's not for giving way. I hope he's not suggesting in his comments that those hard-working families who use those hard-working families who use PIP to be able to get to work on not voices that we should hear in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber. I would absolutely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would absolutely agree with the honourable lady that we go we can consider people like that. I think of the Lady Caine to seamy Saturday of the Lady Caine to seamy Saturday at my Street surgery who was concerned about the PIP process and from her point of view the brutality from her point of view the brutality of it and the way she and her husband, who has a degenerative aggressive disease for which there aggressive disease for which there is no cure, were put through the ringer in order to justify which ringer in order to justify which anybody could see a situation actually deserve support.

But she actually deserve support. But she will be aware of that mushroom in the claims by those with various the claims by those with various levels of mental health challenges, far greater than previously, and ultimately, we must balance looking ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative aggressive diseases in a humane and aggressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner, but also make sure that we have a system which cuts out fraud, which seeks to minimise those who don't need aid, seeing it and getting it, and if only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money they do not deserve and need we will be able to look after the people, which I think in one area of commonality between the honourable lady and myself, would want to see fair and more generous treatment of people in that position.

I thank him for giving way. Would my honourable friends agreed that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in the mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for -- support, sometimes nearly 2 years, which increases the condition, and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work, and that also has increased demand on PIP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his contribution. We on this, I should say, side, this We on this, I should say, side, this corner of the house, as conservatives, we know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, it's safeguards is not leadership, it's not generous kind, is an abdication of responsibility and its economic of responsibility and its economic negligence. Let me be clear, this bill in its current form looks in billions of pounds of additional billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year.

-- Blocks in. Have already seen Blocks in. Have already seen Britain's debt interest forecast saw and the bond markets during, or in and the bond markets during, or in jittering, charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which members opposite so love to prefer. members opposite so love to prefer. And inflation of course as proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment with no plan to pay for it except with no plan to pay for it except reading deeper into taxpayers pockets.

The Chancellor might not say it outright but families in say it outright but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this the country know exactly where this ends up, with them paying more. The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning, U- turning his way throughout his time in office but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister ending to pressure from the left of his party, so well represented on the benches opposite today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting government which has lost now or propulsion.

Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy, which was promised, the foundations if your member, those repeated phrases, Labour has chosen the easy route, higher spending, higher borrowing, and inevitably higher taxes. Not on some ethical class of superrich people which the Greens propose. On ordinary men and women. People who get up in the morning, work hard and look after themselves, and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives, and that needs to be a political tended to.

That is why I have tabled two amendments. The first ensures that Parliament retains control over future annual above inflation increases. It means House of Commons must excessively approve continuing these rates beyond 27/28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. The second, new coastline, requires the government to report on fraud and error arising from the provisions which we are debating today. Given the scale of welfare fraud, have seen in recent years, it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 million.

It is only right that we get a proper handle on right that we get a proper handle on my tax payers money is going. I would happily give away if there were members who were interested in controlling public finances. If there were members who wanted to show responsibility with the public finances, not running up the national credit card in responsibly, which is their want and those efforts by the frontbench opposite have now come to naught. They have given into their backbenchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this government.

Together, the straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse will be there and help reduce waste and misuse. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured well. And members opposite can shout and scream in frustration but they will have their time to speak. But in reality, this does not, is not a fair and measured bill, it achieves nothing but a two tier benefits system, unfunded spending commitments and ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working It's telling that the Secretary of State has not matched these spending increases to tackle fraud or spending error or indeed tie any uplift with measures to help people back into work.

In short, she has failed to ensure that there are clear performance measures in place in order to guarantee value for money for the taxpayer without which the taxpayers will continue on a slippery slope of simply paying more while getting less, and if the honourable gentleman could tell us how he has committed to making sure that the public finances in this country are kept in a healthy state the House looks forward with bated breath.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am really intrigued as the honourable member said yesterday he has a concern are tackling fraud and responsibility of finances. Can he tell us where he was under the last Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of UK social seen in the history of UK social security systems. Where are his references in hindsight? Where was he on bill committees in this House when that fraud was soaring and where was in this Government began where was in this Government began passing legislation to tackle that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of fraud in the benefit system. The honourable gentleman will know that as the benefit system know that as the benefit system grows, the likelihood that fraud will grow within it. But I applaud will grow within it. But I applaud all efforts to clampdown on fraud, all efforts to clampdown on fraud, and that is what I am calling for, greater efforts by the Frontbench to do that, but he knows that it is do that, but he knows that it is those on the backbenches that now call the shots, not those sitting on the Frontbench.

Ultimately, of course, all roads lead back to the course, all roads lead back to the Treasury, but the truth is that this bill is not the product of serious policy-making, nor is it its inception, or eventual outcome now, gutted as it has been by the gutted as it has been by the triumphant left. It is instead a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor that has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind but with rebellion in the rearview mirror and the result is a model, mean-spirited legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people that will suffer under it or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the honourable member and would like to get back to the would like to get back to the vulnerable people that are impacted and they will note that the devastating impact of cancer on many families and the reality of a cancer families and the reality of a cancer diagnosis, they have said that it costs, an average, £700 a month in costs, an average, £700 a month in costs and £6000 lost in annual income. Would he agree with me that income.

Would he agree with me that the current bill will ensure that these people do not get the high- grade Universal Credit health element and they would be devastated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

element and they would be devastated for many cancer patients right across the country. The honourable lady is absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers, and the need to have a system that is more generous to those that genuinely needed, but to those that genuinely needed, but is also tougher in making sure that the funding goes there to places where it is most required. Under where it is most required. Under this the Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same Britain risks a return to the same old Labour, spent today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up.

We saw it under Gordon Brown, we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another labour tax-and- spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy. The bill, in its current form, is a short-term fix with long-term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work and despite all of the protestations that came from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, it does not, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises.

If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending. Not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised the serious Government and yet here we are debating a confused, divisive ill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister's own benches. If the honourable lady wants to tell me this is not divisive and it has not been driven

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the ruptures on the backbenches I look forward to hearing from them. Thank you, madam check. The right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, madam check. The right honourable gentleman will understand that it is, for me, to understand that it is, for me, to understand what my intervention is first my intervention is to say that I was very pleased to hear them sticking very pleased to hear them sticking up for people who really need help, so which part or which clause of his amendment actually makes it better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for people who need help? The honourable lady should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud, and ensuring that this House keeps and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable because who will it be vulnerable because who will it be vulnerable because who will it be that will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? this economic spiral goes downwards? Who will it be? It will be who would always is under a Labour Government, ordinary working people and then the increasing numbers of the unemployed and vulnerable and disabled people.

and vulnerable and disabled people. They are always the ones that pay the price for a Labour Government. When the Labour Government last (in When the Labour Government last (in 2010, youth unemployment was up by 2010, youth unemployment was up by 45%. 45%. That was a record of vulnerable young people who are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment than anything else, and it is them who are always littered by the Labour Government and always let down, most of all, by the Labour Government which is not run by those with some sense of public finance control, but by backbenches who are out of control.

I will happily give way to the honourable lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And would you not agree with me that it is 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% Government that led us to a 29% disability employment, a 70% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling this poverty, and the UN telling this Government that over the first half of its decade it failed on almost every single commitment in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every single commitment in a convention on the under disabled people. Thank the honourable lady who I respect a great deal. She will be aware that the last Conservative Government saw millions of disabled Government saw millions of disabled people coming into the market. I think around two and a half, possibly as many as 3 million more possibly as many as 3 million more disabled people entering the market and having the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing.

Hard- to get our economy growing. Hard- working families involved and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and stability. I called Rachel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I called Rachel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. Loss has been overshadowed by the events of the last 48-hour is. The impacts assessment of last night shows that 2 million are still to be stripped
14:23
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
2 million are still to be stripped for up to 3 million sick and disabled people by 29 /30, through slashing the health element of Universal Credit into. I the end of this Parliament, someone will lose around £3000 per yeah because these reforms, and also those of the fluctuating conditions. If that were not bad enough, the UN human rights office of the high commission has waded into protect disabled people, where this Labour Government has not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government is now under investigation for breaches.

No matter what spin, to pass the bill tonight, this will leave such a stain on our great party, founded on values of equality and justice. That the only out is to withdraw the clauses, so that the UN Convention on the persons with disabilities are upheld. Their contention is my contention. Sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone has a fluctuating physical or mental health condition like Multiple Sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, or a recurring most musculoskeletal condition, if, following a period of remission and work, then relapse and returning to Universal Credit, and thus unequivocally stated they will return onto the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.

I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My constituents, we have some of high standing points of 17% for terms a national average, many of terms a national average, many of them get this health element. Does the honourable member agree that if they were to be stripped of they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enormous impact on their mental health which would cause a further drain on the NHS? I thank the honourable member for his intervention, but we know that when people's mental health declines when people's mental health declines because of the stresses and strains, it also pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not from the labour market, which is not the objective of pathways to work or this Government, so it would be this Government, so it would be detrimental for that person, but also to our ambition.

And that is why this sitting budget and budgets why this sitting budget and budgets of individuals with so little when of individuals with so little when we have got rising energy prices, food prices, and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling is the difference between struggling or surviving. All they could expect is poverty to fight harder, stress to spread wider, and hope to fade to spread wider, and hope to fade faster. For many, with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.

symptoms. What a way to live.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for the compassionate speech. I recently the compassionate speech. I recently knocked on the door of one of my constituents who suffers with fibromyalgia and it happened to be the day that she received a letter telling her that she was expected to open her working hours by six following an assessment. She was following an assessment. She was broken by this news and exactly the kind of mental distress the member is referring to was evident to me. Does she agree with me that whatever Does she agree with me that whatever reforms we have, they have to put compassion and care for the individual at the heart of the assessment system? So that those people, particularly with fluctuating conditions, do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience the kind of distress that I witnessed that day with my constituent? The honourable member has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member has advocated so powerfully for his constituent. But, also, all those with fluctuating conditions. You never know with a fluctuating condition if that is because of the condition if that is because of the season of the yeah, how you will fare. For some people, they may develop more chest infections over the winter, but the rest of the the winter, but the rest of the yeah, be well. And yet they would be returning on just £50, not the 97. returning on just £50, not the 97.

Or perhaps, I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or perhaps, I am happy to give way. I am grateful to her for giving way. Would she recognise how the bill protects people in the situation? Those that received situation? Those that received Universal Credit payment will be fully protected once they go into work and are likely to continue to receive this so their production will carry on, if this exceeds Universal Credit levels and there will be six months further than that level, in which if we come straight back in the start, but very strong protections.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the honourable member. This is where this gets incredibly technical, because there incredibly technical, because there cannot be an assumption that all people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all of their lives as their condition has developed, and therefore it is in the later stages of their career. Perhaps where their salary does exceed those where their salary does exceed those thresholds. And, of course, as we all know, with many of those conditions that I have listed, and conditions that I have listed, and so many more, you could have a period of remission for eight, nine, period of remission for eight, nine, even more months, and therefore you will not be able to continue with will not be able to continue with that six months support, it means you exceed that, and therefore you will be back, according to our will be back, according to our previous discussions, you will be back being seen as a new claimant back being seen as a new claimant and therefore dropped to £50, not remaining on the 97.

And that is where my amendment will come into where my amendment will come into protect those people. And, also, people with cancer, who could people with cancer, who could recover, get back to work, then the news comes, it has returned, or metastasised. You lose your job. And metastasised. You lose your job. And then are you back at £97 or £50 each week? Can you eat or can you not eat? As life, as if life was not hard enough, and then you received that shattering news, my amendment would be a remedy for those people, for as many that need this support.

But without such guarantees, I worry that with the single assessment as well, to be co-produced by the Timms Review, according to pathways to work, that a day we do not know either, whether the eligibility criteria from qualifying for the UC health element because of its association with PIP will be more or less stringent than it is right now. The bill does not say because, again, the sequencing in this bill is wrong. The cart before the horse, the vote before the review, and the only shambles of the review, the people with fluctuating conditions not knowing where they stand, and, for that, or where any of us stand by the end of today.

It is wrong to leave and disabled people with such uncertainty and, for that, my amendment would make life just that little bit more certain, but, in reality, unless clauses 2 and three go, or this bill is withdrawn, or the UN human rights High Commissioner exposes the truth, sick and disabled people will be further and disabled people will be further And as warned last night, there will be tragedy, and that's why I can't support the government today. So here we are again, no agency, no coproduction, and no idea how this tragic tale will end.

I just ask that it ends tonight on the right side of history, and through our amendment, at least for those with fluctuating conditions.
14:32
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Thank you. We are actor really interesting point -- we are at a really interesting point on this, and it feels like there's more to come. Mr chair, I would like to do as the chair of the Select Committee did and begin by thanking all of those particular Disabled People's Organisations who have worked incredibly hard and who have assisted in winning some concessions, and no matter where we end up, I think we need to be incredibly proud of the amount of work that they have put in to this, and also the fact that those disabled people who are already receiving PIP and Universal Credit have continued to fight on behalf of those future claimants for PIP and Universal Credit limited capability for work, even though they had no selfish need to do so, I think that absolutely shows the strength of the community, and the amount that disabled people care for each other.

It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in that group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour government. It should not be the case that the change that was promised by the frontbenchers is was promised by the frontbenchers is a change that firstly attacked older people by cutting their Winter Fuel Payment, has refused to take action on child, bringing forward the child strategy and now is balancing the budget by cutting money from disabled people.

This is not the Labour Party that I wrote about in my history hires, and wrote about the rise of the Labour Party and what it was founded on and the whole point about it being, supporting people and the principles on the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour government would look like. I had hopes that that would actually deliver for some people. I hope it will deliver for disabled people, for those people that the Tories have spent 14 years marginalising, and yet is choosing to make those cuts, it is choosing to make EEC cuts to disabled people.

I don't think those are easy cuts. I don't think they are the right cuts to make and I agree with my colleague who suggested there are much, much better ways to balance the budget and actually the fiscal rules are self-imposed anyway. Specifically looking at some of the issues there are in this bill, I agree with my colleague from Brighton in relation to the essentials guarantee and Amendment 39. I would say that making people purer will not magically improve the health deaf poorer.

When it comes to the coproduction, when it comes to the new course 11 on coproduction, I fully agree with the new clause and will urge that minister to take action around coproduction. For the Minister we have in Scotland created the adult disability payment. If you look on the Social Security (Scotland) Act website, it says, Social Security is a human right. Any of us at any time may need the support. We centred the decision- making around dignity, fairness and respect.

I'm not saying for a second that adult disability payment is perfect. Absolutely there are issues with every single system. But the way that was co-produced and the lessons that we learned from those coproductions are things that I would absolutely urge the Minister to look at, when he's planning the coproduction of the PIP assessments and massively concerned that when we come to the review, I'm not clear on what basis the reviews being done. What is the point of the review? I understand it is to review the PIP process but I don't understand why, what is the government aim with it? Is the aim to cut liens of pounds off the PIP payment? Is it the aim? Is the aim to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions don't have to fill in the same form over and over again explaining what it is they can't do.

Is it to reduce the number of mandatory considerations, to make the system better, centring dignity and respect, or is it to make... What is the point of that review? Some clarity from the government would be incredibly helpful. I'm sure she is familiar with the terms of reference for the Timms Review which clearly set out the purposes to make sure that the PIP assessment is fair, fit for the future, help support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence.

I hope that she will agree with me that the right honourable Stephen Timms is a very well placed as the Minister to lead this review in coproduction with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled people. It would be great to from the Dispatch Box the Minister could clarify that it is not about saving money, that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money when he goes forward with this. I when he goes forward with this. I mean, if the member is able to give a commitment on behalf the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked him to give, to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference absolutely say no do not want money absolutely say no do not want money to be saved, that is grand, but I could not find, we do not want money could not find, we do not want money to be saved.

I would like to hear the commitment from the Minister on whether or not he has been asked to whether or not he has been asked to save money, when he is doing this review. I think disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the actions of this terrified by the actions of this government, terrified by the pathways to work with, I think pathways to work with, I think should hear that from the Minister on whether or not he's trying to on whether or not he's trying to save money or whether he's putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that coproduction happens.

After questions around the severe conditions criteria. I'm severe conditions criteria. I'm concerned because the bill itself is different from what the DWP have been putting out in press releases. The DWP press releases have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible to get the severe conditions, that is what it says in DWP press releases that have been quoted in the Guardian for example, in relation to it. However, what the bill says is that have to have the condition constantly, there has to be constant application.

I think the Minister really needs to give a very explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box, because the government had decided not to have a proper committee stage in Committee where we would have this out, where we would ask questions, get this level of clarification, people are really scared about it. The Minister will understand the House been a significant number of amendments put in around this from parties across the House, concerns raised about this because what it says in the built-in schedule 1 is a descriptor constantly applies to the claimant if that descriptor applies at all times, or as the case may be on all locations on which the claimant undertakes or tends to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.

So if one of the descriptors is around being able to get yourself around, around being able to wash yourself, that clause in schedule 1, or that subsection, says it has to apply constantly. If that is not the case, a clear exhalation from the Minister about why that is not the case, about... Because the constant thing is not in the previous version that I can find, not in the previous version of the legislation apply constantly, it seems this is a new thing that has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been added. Last week at the Dispatch Box we heard from the Minister saying descriptors, activities and descriptors, activities and associated point or be subject to the Timms Review which would be co- produced with disabled people. Was she listening to that statement from she listening to that statement from the Minister except that as fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given at the Dispatch Box? The Timms Review is about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Timms Review is about personal and payment. This is about the limited cable receiver work. They are different things. I don't understand how the Timms Review could possibly cover this because could possibly cover this because the Timms Review is about Personal Independence Payment. If that descriptors, if discovered by the descriptors, if discovered by the Timms Review why is the government not removed it from the bill? Why is there not a clause in the bill right there not a clause in the bill right now removing the severe conditions criteria and that section?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. The form of words in the bill including the word constant is in fact exactly replicating the way the severe conditions criteria is applied at conditions criteria is applied at the moment. The constant refers to the moment. The constant refers to the applicability of the descriptor. So if somebody has a fluctuating condition, and perhaps on one day they are able to contribute to work, to walk 15 m, the question to put that person, by the assessor, is a new do so reliably, safely, repeatedly, in a reasonable time? If the question answer is no, the descriptor still applies to them.

The question is does that descriptor apply constantly and if it does, and the severe conditions criteria

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apply. That is what I was asking for. That will people that give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister will lot of comfort. As the Minister will be aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at. When it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the challenge in relation to the descriptors. So if people are not now asked whether they can do it on other days, whether they can not just at reliably or whether they just at reliably or whether they can, then I would expect that disabled people charities would be disabled people charities would be using that, the Minister has made at the Dispatch Box were now bringing monetary considerations or challenges to say the Minister was utterly clear that I have answered this question correctly in line with this question correctly in line with what the legislation is and I would very much encourage them to do so.

very much encourage them to do so. Because of the way the legislation is written, I will not be supporting the severe conditions criteria. I still will not be supporting the cut. I agree with colleagues who cut. I agree with colleagues who have sent 750,000 people are looking to lose money as a result of this. And this is still as my colleague And this is still as my colleague said, this is £2 billion of cuts that the Labour Party has chosen to make on disabled people, that is what it says on the impact assessment.

It is chosen to make this cut to 750,000 people and it has said, where can we make £2 million? Let's do it to disabled people. You can have conditional £2 billion of taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on this money for every day little items that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

desperately require. I thank her for giving way and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way and I completely agree with that contention will stop this is how you judge a society. How takes care of judge a society. How takes care of the most vulnerable. And as you say, it does appear on the face of it not it does appear on the face of it not to discredit anybody at all but it does appear on the face of it, the people who somebody decided to say, this is where we'll go where there this is where we'll go where there are other avenues that can be explored.

And people want us to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explored. And people want us to do that before we get into any of this. I thank her for what you say, she has been a real champion for her has been a real champion for her constituents in this and I appreciate that she is actually correct, this is not the first correct, this is not the first place, I would expect any MPs to be looking to save money. This is looking to save money. This is especially not the first place that I would be expecting supposedly progressive government to be looking progressive government to be looking to save money.

I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up disappointed that we have ended up in the situation, and unlike what the Member said, I don't think they the Member said, I don't think they are victorious faces on the backbenches. I think people on that side of the House are absolutely heart that, no matter what side of the debate you are on because they would the government front benches had not put this forward. They would they were not in a position that they were having to pick the side on this because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first manner of business.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The windup speeches will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The windup speeches will have to start at 5:30 PM. There are some 37 members standing on both some 37 members standing on both sides of the House. I'm not in a position, I'm not allowed to impose position, I'm not allowed to impose a time limit. By doing so it would be about four minutes. It is up to be about four minutes. It is up to colleagues, whether on not they choose to allow their colleagues to speak or whether they choose to take speak or whether they choose to take up more of the time, in which case it is quite clear not everybody is it is quite clear not everybody is
14:45
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
-
Gorgeous new closet which is in my name, it is teachable, do not think it is particular contentious but before I do let me just say I am still getting emails and IM still being on the bus and at committee events at that moment that people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through for my constituents that as I have always done I will not vote for any legislation which cuts the benefits, just want that underlined. Just to put in context, some of you recently saw an interview on the today program with George Osborne, the Chair of the British Museum talking about the tapestry coming to this country.

I remember when he introduced the cuts to benefits in this way before. And there is another tapestry needed to this House and it was a tapestry of the names of the people that had committed suicide. It was one of the most distressing things I have ever seen in my political life. I wept that day. And I do not want that to happen again. But I have to say, let's be honest, if cuts go through on this scale, people will lose their lives.

They will suffer intense harm. Let's all understand that. That is why the new closet, partially, is because I thought that last week in the debates people say very pompously or the best of the House and all that sort of thing but actually it was a good day for the House because people on all sides expressed their views. The Government responded, not as far as I wanted to, but the House was holding Government to account. It is not often that you see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened is because we were dealing with primary legislation, the Honourable Members could amend, debate and amend.

The reason I put the amendment forward to say that if the coverage is going to do anything it should do it on the base of primary legislation. Not delegated legislations, not committee. You did not get the chance to amend and it is often brushed through and there will be no debate whatsoever. That is so important and that is not the way that we should operate. And members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this chamber last week.

And that is why my amendment says that for prime legislation and draft forms we can all see it, so there are no bouncers anymore, do not do it in under delegated legislation because we will not have the chance to amend it and properly discuss it. That is all I am asking for and, to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it as a normal process of democracy in this chamber and I want to go back to my constituents when it comes forward and say I argued your case, forward and say I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I lost on some, one on others.

That is democracy. I support the Honourable Members notion on new clause 11 and 12, an excellent setting out of how coproduction can work. I think that is true. The only element I disagree with the honourable member on is that it moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement that we can project and they cannot move on and if they do reject it, the problem with the statement is exactly the same as the delegated legislation. You cannot amend this statement.

And I have been here so long that the Ministers bring forward a statement having thrown some good stuff in that we cannot replace, but also some bad stuff that we disagree with and if you cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result of that I think that is a result but on the element in 11 where it sets out all but should be consulted or involved or elect The Chair I think, I say this, I do not want this to sound patronising, but the honourable lady speech last week, it is not often that it brings tears to my eyes that I hear a speech in this House but the justifiable anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, I think it did the whole house, actually.

I do not want eight members standing up in five years time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not in any aggressive way, but in a constructive way, where we can debate, amend, and, hopefully, we might even be able to build consensus. And that is what this amendment is all about, that is all I wanted to say to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise primarily to speak to amendment tabled by my right honourable friend tabled by my right honourable friend the Member for Caversham and Kent, however, I would like to begin by addressing those on meds brought forward by the Secretary of State forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. When we were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill in June, then after being held over a barrel by her backbenchers, the Secretary of State
14:51
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
backbenchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then at the 11th hour of the second reading just last week amendment spoke of five and 10, were hastily drawn up. Why? To cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government can pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people that pay the price for the additional welfare spending for our constituents who get up early, work hard, and pay their bills.

New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to the fairness in the system. Key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals received their PIP payments after only attending a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill by medicalisation of conditions like OCD and anxiety. And, finally there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those that have come to the United Kingdom by any means of supporting themselves.

These are not fringe views. These are widely supported by the public. By working with men and women across the country who do the right thing and increasingly ask why are we putting a bill for a system that we no longer believe in? The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with that state. In allowing a system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels. My constituent, Nick, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope he does not mind me intervening. Just to the point he intervening. Just to the point he was making about people that come to was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Was he aware that during the pandemic, he aware that during the pandemic, for example, that people who had leave to remain were not able to avail themselves of any security avail themselves of any security support as they do not have recourse for their funds and they were left for their funds and they were left absolutely destitute.

So, as to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely destitute. So, as to suggest that happens, I hope you all withdraw that remark, because it is just not true. I have a lot of respect for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a lot of respect for the honourable lady. I would not withdraw the comment that I made because there are people in that because there are people in that situation. The social contract is situation. The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent, Nick, who works hard constituent, Nick, who works hard for the money he earns, he is the system, walk through the town centre, he asks himself what is the centre, he asks himself what is the point.

Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often do not? These amendments matter. They are not unfair, they are principled. They ensure the welfare system remains strong for those who truly need it, and therefore those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act and, unfortunately, if the Government does not support our amendments today, they will be letting them down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendment four. to new clause 11 and amendment four. The phase of this bill has transformed from second reading. I welcome the Government significant welcome the Government significant changes and hard work. I said that I could not support measures that had remained on the face of the bill remained on the face of the bill last week that would have pushed 150,000 people into poverty. Nor can I accept proposals from a point system which, under previously proposed descriptors, would exclude
14:54
Marie Tidball Portrait Dr Marie Tidball MP (Penistone and Stocksbridge, Labour)
-
-
eligibility for those that cannot put their underwear, prosthetic limbs, or shoes on without support. Towards the end of the second reading debate, the Government promised to remove clause 5 on Personal Independence Payments, including the eligibility criteria. I wholeheartedly support the amendment that achieves this today. I am pleased to hear the new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found this bill will now lift 50,000 people out of relative poverty by 2030. This matters.

Both to fulfil the government's obligations under the Equality Act and our commitment to the UN Convention on the persons with disabilities in 2016, when the UN produced its inquiry report on the UK treatment of disabled people under the Conservative Government, they said the Government, at that time, must ensure that any measures of welfare reform upholds the human rights model of disability and does not disproportionately or adversely affect rights of disabled people to live independently or access employment. Further, I will.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my honourable friend forgiving way and I do welcome the amendment. Does the honourable member a with me that coproduction needs to go beyond oversight if we needs to go beyond oversight if we want to build a trust and engagement with disabled people and their organisations? And we need to commit organisations? And we need to commit to the principles of coproduction as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the principles of coproduction as Last week. Think you would agree and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think you would agree and I will be getting to those points shortly. I think the honourable lady for her intervention. Further, the UN to voices of disabled people must be at the front and centre of this word. the front and centre of this word. In the UK must actively consult and engage with disabled people and their organisations and to give due consideration to their views on any legislation which is related to legislation which is related to these rights. Therefore, guv four is a significant step forward in removing those measures which were not consulted on.

It also events the risks I highlighted in my speech risks I highlighted in my speech last week on previously proposed eligibility criteria. Particularly eligibility criteria. Particularly on future recipient 's. I am also pleased that the Minister confirmed last week that legislation on last week that legislation on changes to eligibility and the Scriptures will not happen until the completion of the Timms Review. Which leads me to new clause 11. I am grateful for this amendment being selected. It is important to have a debate on it is improving and amendment, and, above all, I will be seeking reassurances from the despatch boxes from the Minister, that the Government will get the detail of coproduction right.

I am grateful that the measures in this amendment were co-produced, and supported, by Disability Rights UK, and by discussion through a broader group of the People's organisations and charities. New clause 11 sets out key measures to deliver on our excellent manifesto commitment to champion 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. Further, the measures in ANSI 11 create a strong limb between the Timms Review and fulfilling our Equality Act public sector policy duty as well as that UK commitments to that UN CRPD, including principles in article 4, three, on the need to closely consult with and actively involved disabled people.

Thus, in this context, meaningful coproduction with the disability inclusion taskforces as part of the Timms Review is essential. While the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, I will give way. Thank you for giving way. I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. I would just like to commend her for her excellent speech, both today and in excellent speech, both today and in the second reading and all the work I know she has done behind-the- scenes to get us to the place that we are today. And I fully support my we are today. And I fully support my Honourable Friends amendment which would guarantee meaningful engagement with disabled people engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP. As my right honourable friend, As my right honourable friend, sorry, as my honourable friend knows, PIP is also a gateway benefit to parents allowance, and so will to parents allowance, and so will she allow agree with me that it is essential that carers as well as disabled people are included in the disability production taskforces?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disability production taskforces? I do agree, and while the Minister will hit up this review, Minister will hit up this review, the voices of disabled people must be front and centre. The measures in this disabled people's organisations this disabled people's organisations to make up the majority of the task force and to have a significant role in the leadership of their view, and in the leadership of their view, and I believe that carers could be part of that. Output of this review also be meaningful and not performative.

be meaningful and not performative. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recommendations co- produced in the taskforces go back to this House for full scrutiny, debate, and parliamentary approval before the legislation to implement the reviews outcomes are brought forward. This will ensure democratic accountability for those outcomes, including on how changes to PIP eligibility will impact disabled people. While the new clause suggests it should be after 12 months ahead of any proposals around PIP coming out next autumn, I am aware that the Minister is keen to ensure this coproduction process is not rushed.

That is a very good approach. I am grateful to that in his closing statement at second reading the Minister acknowledged the goal to target the disability employment this is the kind of approach I know the Government will develop as they bring forward the plans for employment support. The very significant changes in this bill since last week will shift the emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential, closing the disability employment gap, and anchoring labour values of fairness anchoring labour values of fairness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of
15:01
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of Amendment two, A, amendment 38, and Amendment two, A, amendment 38, and Amendment 39, and NCH NCH. Merrill was a 57-year-old grandad and I would have footballer. His emaciated body was found in a freezing flat, no gas, electricity, food. Two tins of fish, for years out of date. He weighed 4.5 stone, and he died from starvation. He had severe social anxiety. As his daughter-in-law said, he would still be alive, he would be ill but still alive, his death was not a tragic exception.

It was a political consequence. In 2017 Jodie took her own life after missing a work test whilst she was hospitalised. Stephen Smith was denied benefits despite being gravely ill. He died in 2019. These aren't just names, they are the human costs of decisions made in this place, decisions that according to research contributed over one million premature deaths in England between 2011 and the pandemic, driven by poverty and austerity. Clause 2 of the bill will slash the Universal Credit health element, the limited credibility for work and work-related activity component from £97-£50 a week, by 2030 activity component from £97-£50 a week, by 20 33,000 annual cart for over 750 for over 750,000 herbal people by a These are people who cannot feed themselves, people who live with the gent of illnesses, people experience daily pain, confusion and incontinence and we are supposed to believe that this is about helping them into employment.

Even the government-owned figures show that you then one in 10 new claimants will be protected by the so-called severe conditions criteria. And charities like Scope, the MS Society and inclusion London have made this clear, this clause will exclude huge swathes of severely to herbal people, especially those with fluctuating progressive conditions like Multiple Sclerosis, bipolar disorder and Parkinson's. Why? Because to qualify your condition, according to the bill on paper, must affect you constantly, not severely, not overwhelmingly but constantly.

So put it feels like it's been designed to cut support not to support people. And let's not forget the requirement for an NHS diagnosis, in the middle of a backlog prices, excluding people with neurodivergent conditions and other relying on support. This is a deliberate narrowing of the safety net. The result, due to a system that punishes people for trying to work, for having variable symptoms or falling through the cracks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your kazoo. -- Falling through the cracks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bureaucracy. It excludes young people as well because their diagnosis and their condition may not automatically condition may not automatically transfer from the medical records as a child and to the adult record, so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a child and to the adult record, so they need an NHS diagnosis that needs to move from the children's. Exactly. Those are part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly. Those are part of the concerns with that aspect. Meanwhile, what is the economic Meanwhile, what is the economic There is not one, as a share of GDP There is not one, as a share of GDP working age benefits have not risen since 2015. Other countries such as France and Australia invest more in their disabled citizens and yes we do have that ensues. A 2% tax on do have that ensues. A 2% tax on extreme wealth, just 50 families in this country earn more wealth and half that UK ablation, and three half that UK ablation, and three quarters of the public according to quarters of the public according to YouGov support 80% tax on those with wealth more than £10 million.

Yet this government will not tax the superrich, instead they are choosing to take from those with arthritis, to take from those with arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, just can't decide how much suffering to inflict. And they found brilliance inflict. And they found brilliance for all, billions to raise defence spending to back endless foreign interventions, money for war but not the poor. Mr chair, the truth is, Westminster is broken, the real crisis is deeper. This is the government not out of touch but also morally bankrupt.

It works for billionaires and the distance while turning its back on disabled people. It holds its summer receptions at massive headquarters for disabled people are pushed to food banks. It impoverishes the sick and elderly to satisfy spreadsheets and then dares to speak of tough choices. But the public see through it. 81% of voters believe disabled people should receive support for basic living costs, that is not a niche opinion, that is mainstream Britain and disable organisations from Deepak to Disability Rights UK are united in their opposition because if this passes the consequences will be felt everywhere, especially in our constituency surgeries.

The emails, letters, desperation, the suffering, all of it affordable. I voted to protect Winter Fuel Payments, I would do it again. I voted to scrap the two child benefit cap, I would do it again, and I will be voting against these cuts because this isn't just about benefits, it's the country want to be. Protecting the vulnerable or punishing them. I know which side I stand on and I know I speak millions across the country when I say not going to take this any more.

The two-party state is finished, there is an intensive and we will be offering it. -- Two-party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe this bill will help address some of the difficult challenges our country faces. Many in this House are motivated by genuine desire to improve lives and ensure our welfare improve lives and ensure our welfare system is fair and fit for purpose but on this occasion I have to say, with the deepest respect, and regret, I think we have got this
15:07
Olivia Blake Portrait Olivia Blake MP (Sheffield Hallam, Labour)
-
-
regret, I think we have got this wrong. Yes the Labour government has inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and yes we need reform but we must be clear, reform cannot be pushing disabled people further into poverty, referring to cuts as modernisation, poverty has a pricetag and the cost of chanting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration. I rise to support amendment 37 in the name of the member.

Average which highlights the lack of value for money that the current contracts have when it comes to assessment. With so many reassessments and appeals that are successful, it is clear we are not getting value for money out of these contracts and they are an expensive and ineffective model that ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward and that is reflected in many of the amendments I have Eight I strongly agree with this and I think that given we have had such a lack of time to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down if the recommendations are brought back to us so that we can have good quality debates and better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility.

For those already struggling, who are at risk of struggling, who are at risk of authority. New clause 11 course for any review of PIP to be grounded in principles of the UN Convention of the rights of people with disabilities. I'm disappointed that a clause might be needed but it really points to the fact we need more transparency, independent oversight and crucially coproduction with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us and I really hope the government by listening to that amendment.

The amendment 38 tabled by my honourable And... Which can be untreatable. The amendment would ensure instead of being left runnable, the processes responsive to this and services purpose are being a safety bracket for those who need it. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise their concerns about this. With conditions like MS, Huntington's, cancer and schizophrenia, people are concerned about how these changes will impact them and I think they need to be heard in this place.

These amendments don't block reform, they strengthen it. They ensure the bill is evidence led and rooted in fairness. I would like to briefly point to new clause 12 which seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal edit. There is no shock that the opposition will use any debate for an excuse to have a game of migrant bashing, I'm very disappointed to see that this has made its way into a proposal.

But most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and Universal Credit. This restriction acts as a blanket ban on the access of social security systems to 3.6 million migrants. For those who have spent years living and working in the UK, paying taxes and have finally secured indefinite leave to remain, do we think it's acceptable to deny them access to PIP or other social security based on their nationality rather than their disability smack this amendment threatens the fundamental principle of our integration system, that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to the to remain should have access to the same rights as producers and is.

-- As British citizens. We could scrap the marriage Tax alliance that is costing us millions, a gimmick from the Cameron government. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes like the carried interest loophole which would raise £500,000, we can apply national insurance to investment, raising over £10 billion, in modest 2% adjustment to the 207 billion handed out in nonstructural and nontax release would raise £4 billion each and every year, and had struck about those reliefs. There are roughly 1180 tax reliefs in the UK, 815 HMRC has no idea what UK, 815 HMRC has no idea what benefits they bring to the public.

And these are about choices, and we hear all the time it's about tough choices. But why are we not choosing to properly examine the £200 million of public spending while we are tightening support for disabled people were just trying to live. We can and should...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable lady, and as ever she makes a very lady, and as ever she makes a very passionate case. Would she agree passionate case. Would she agree with me that in essence, the principal objection that many of us had against this bill still remains, had against this bill still remains, because it is still balancing the books on some of the most vulnerable. It will still bring poverty and therefore the best option for the government, that this bill must be withdrawn.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill must be withdrawn. I do agree and that is my Peter the frontbench, there is still time to withdraw the bill, and come back with something better. These issues should be tackled head on. It is unjust that because we have got a unjust that because we have got a society that we have, it costs an average thousand extra pounds a- month each and every disabled on month each and every disabled on average. And none of this is optional spending, it's the unavoidable price of navigating that society, which was not designed for disabled people in mind, and there's disabled people in mind, and there's a whole host of reasons why that spending occurs.

These are not negotiable, these are nonnegotiable negotiable, these are nonnegotiable realities of having it as ability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen to us. Are nonnegotiable realities that you must have economic growth, if you're going to be able to fulfil you're going to be able to fulfil your priorities for government, whether looking after the poor, disabled or any other priority and yet this government has got yet this government has got inflation nearly doubled, the unemployment bill, the jobs tax, unemployment bill, the jobs tax, other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can members opposite not understand that if you opposite not understand that if you don't prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, you will never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and economic growth, you will never be able to serve those who are most fungible and depend on that growth most. I thank him for interaction me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for interaction me there because there were two points that I have suggested that I think that I have suggested that I think would be good to look into growth. The first would be to give the The first would be to give the British investment bank the same standing as it does to investing in women and minority and ask that they women and minority and ask that they actually support disabled people where they are able to set up their own businesses.

I know many ADHD who own businesses. I know many ADHD who would make great entrepreneurs, unfortunately sometimes the end up down the path of commonality and that is something I think we should that is something I think we should be looking out, and how we can make sure that people's innovation is enhanced and used properly. The second would be to look at ways we can make our economy much more inclusive, for example giving a national insurance contributions discount for a period of time, for taking someone on whom a habitability, maybe in receipt of PIP who may have been out of work for more than six months.

There is some sort of arrangement that would encourage growth, not discourage growth, by having a more inclusive society. Have taken far too much time, but I want to end with this. Disabled people know what's best for us. We should be investing in people's independence, not leaving them at the sidelines, not pushing them into poverty, it is a matter of justice and in the end it saves money, too, but one that it gives people dignity and freedom to live well and that, surely, should the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support amongst others
15:16
Ann Davies Portrait Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support amongst others clause 8, 11, 12, 38 and 39. And others as I go through my speech. I promise to keep within the four promise to keep within the four minutes and official timeline. Week after the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Personal Independence Payment Bill it is arbitrary eligibility cut-offs it is arbitrary eligibility cut-offs being first discussed. We are today being asked to amend and pass this deeply flawed bill in a couple of deeply flawed bill in a couple of hours.

Of course, it is now a completely different build on it was completely different build on it was the first time it was put forward, and even the title will be changed. and even the title will be changed. I am not alone in the removal of clause 5 of the bill, meaning no person will lose vital Personal Independence Payment so that this Government can save some money. However, like other Honourable Members, I do not believe the UK government's concessions make this government's concessions make this bill now worthy of the legislation.

But the Government has conceded that But the Government has conceded that placing an arbitrary cut-off date for eligibility is unsupportable. Why on earth does it continue to do Why on earth does it continue to do exactly that for payments of the health element of Universal Credit. health element of Universal Credit. I commend the honourable member for his amendment which calls to continue the level of Universal Credit health element at £423.27 p for all new claimants. Further than lowering the country for those lowering the country for those unlucky enough to require that support after 2026.

Because this measure alone will cause hardships once again. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that without further changes over 700,000 disabled would still face a cut to their income of up to £3000 per year by 2030. So, we do not know the data that has informed this approach, nor that has informed this approach, nor the impacts for people in Wales. An assessment of the specific impact on Wales has been necessary since the UK Government first announced this months ago and other plans have changed considerably.

That impact assessment is all the more crucial. People in Wales need transparency and certainty about how these changes will affect their lives. And in which functioning democracy does the Government build that fundamentally opted in the middle of the first debate on that very bill and elected representatives given a few hours to scrutinise it before it has passed. We need time to fully scrutinise and effectively scrutinise this bill. We need time to coproduce it with the constituents whose life this affects.

And this is a chaotic and shameful state of affairs, especially considering the substantial impact this bill will have on thousands of disabled people on the lowest incomes. If you do not mind, I am keeping to my four-minute timeline. This bill should be scrapped, it is not fair, nor is it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents. I will speak this afternoon to
15:20
Graeme Downie Portrait Graeme Downie MP (Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak this afternoon to amendment 17 in my name supported by 62 members from across the House. We are natural whether or not the are natural whether or not the person has the condition such as Parkinson's or MS and would be considered as a factor in receiving the claimant criteria. We have been working with Parkinson's UK and I have heard concerns from those living with the condition and their carers and family about the problems they already face in accessing the welfare support because of some fundamental supports and the fundamental nature of the condition.

These are the concerns that are exacerbated by the bill and schedule one which says that severe conditions and the criteria and one of the descriptors constantly applies. Someone with Parkinson's or MS, ME, or other conditions may be able to carry out district such as walking for 50 m in the morning but not be able to do so by the afternoon. In my initial reading for the legislation, that means that some with Parkinson's inevitably it is it criteria claimant because they're not be able to get the descriptor constantly.

Mr Chair, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for the extensive engagement they have had with me on this matter and the language used in the bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson's. As the Minister has said, prior to discussion today, much of the explanation I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the descriptor repeatedly and safely and if they cannot then the criteria will be applied constantly as there will be considered a serious criteria claimant.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank him very much for the work that he has done in very helpfully highlighting this? I think helpfully highlighting this? I think very briefly to the current training very briefly to the current training material to the point the level of material to the point the level of function will always meet, so although this criteria refers to a number of functions that will always meet this does not, in anywhere, exclude people diagnosed with a exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.

The key issue is that this is not subject to such variability that this would ever be variability that this would ever be significantly improved. I help that my earlier intervention gives some reassurance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and can I thank the Minister for his intervention? I think that will provide an extensive amount of reassurance and other amount of reassurance and other conditions as well. I do somewhat as conditions as well. I do somewhat as a watching brief on this as this progresses because I am aware that Parkinson's UK have just today Parkinson's UK have just today received their own advice ensuring that the application of this might not be quite as clear as the Minister intense.

And I would say that my other concern comes around perhaps the overdue burden that this places on the guidance as well as perhaps the unfair position it puts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the assessor in that could lead to application of the guidance. I think my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my honourable friend for giving way. My father-in-law died from Parkinson's to under half weeks ago, so this is both very personal ago, so this is both very personal issue for me and family and also where they are concerned about the where they are concerned about the lack of clarity and I wanted just to outline support to his calls for outline support to his calls for clarity and most grateful for the Ministers intervention, we need to make sure that we get this right and we get it right soon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

we get it right soon. I thank my honourable friend for his intervention and the thoughts from this House and his family. I know how challenging a time it has know how challenging a time it has been and the fact he has been able to carry on his duties to represent his constituencies is to his credit and something that they would be and something that they would be very proud of as well. As I say, the very proud of as well.

As I say, the Minister has been very grateful and I do not believe for a moment it is his intention to restrict access to his intention to restrict access to the criteria for those with Parkinson's and those from the Dispatch Box are, indeed, incredibly Dispatch Box are, indeed, incredibly helpful. I would, however, just ask him to continue to make sure he keeps a close eye on the situation to make sure that the application. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But can I just look at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But can I just look at the guidance that is subject to change, it is not contained anywhere within it is not contained anywhere within the bill or the amendments, so the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance is of the House. I thank the honourable member for his intervention. Again, to my very his intervention. Again, to my very hopeful conversations with the Minister understand this has taken Minister understand this has taken existence guidance and appointed to law, however, I do understand his concern, and actually my final point before I close my remarks is to ask before I close my remarks is to ask the Minister to keep this under active review, and if there is any active review, and if there is any new evidence that comes to life that new evidence that comes to life that ensures that legislation is acting as a barrier to ensuring the Government actual position is being reflected in reality that he will consider opportunities to make sure that is corrected in due course.

We all really hope to see the government's clear intentions that people with Parkinson's, I unhappy to take one final intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to take one final intervention. Thank you to the Member for taking a further intervention. And also as a signatory to his amendment I wondered whether his discussions with the Minister have indicated with the Minister have indicated whether someone that has a condition like relapsing and remitting MS were long periods of time can be spent being perfectly healthy, it would, but then other periods when a crisis occurs and the person is quite debilitated by their condition, whether the provisions that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister describes will be sympathetic to those sorts of situations. I thank my honourable friend for her intervention. She will know that her intervention. She will know that her and I have a shared front that her and I have a shared front that has suffered with MS and I think it is one of those conditions where we need to make sure there is a clear need to make sure there is a clear understanding of the reality of those conditions on the ground when that is being delivered, in reality, by assessors, that those people absolutely are able to access this additional support.

I think that we additional support. I think that we all need. I would just finally close by saying that we all know that by saying that we all know that welfare reforms are undoubtedly needed after the miss of the system we were left with by the previous Government and wherever possible we Government and wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of our legislation is as clear as possible to make sure that those affected are absolutely no doubt to what our absolutely no doubt to what our intent is that it is indisputable and we are truly giving effect to what the intentions of the what the intentions of the legislation are and want to thank her for that incredibly helpful intervention, but we will also make sure that the reality does reflect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Government excellent intentions. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Advice to
15:26
15:28
15:28
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
first hand from myself as an employer with people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen, and left, is simple. The current proposals risk The current proposals risk acceptable consequences to those that are already among the most that are already among the most vulnerable. The Government definition of conditions hinges on the ward constantly. A single word the ward constantly. A single word of dubious political value, I do however, appreciate the clarification that we have had two clarification that we have had two previous members, however, it is very late in the day to be getting very late in the day to be getting this kind of important information.

Conditions like ME Massey FS MS Conditions like ME Massey FS MS epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable, they fluctuate. And unpredictable, they fluctuate. And yet this bill could exclude many of these individuals from vital these individuals from vital support, simply because the symptoms do not comply with the Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that their assessment system respects the United Kingdom's obligations under the UN Convention obligations under the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

This affirms the principle of non-retrogression, that they do not rollback hard-won they do not rollback hard-won points. It insists that we take episodic condition seriously and protects people from falling through the cracks. This bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament and, at this point, the most obvious course of action would be simply to put it all together and be simply to put it all together and start again. I realise the political difficulties that this may involve, however, there are vulnerable people's lives at stake.

When the people's lives at stake. When the Government does come to look again at some of the deleted clauses of the Timms Review, it is essential to approach the issue from a needs first angle, not how much can I save angle. Certainly cutting to the past actions do more than they save. I accept that the Government does not have infinite funds, but what we saw with the proposal was an arbitrary change in eligibility with a crude objective making a predetermined saving.

It has all been the wrong way round which we have to understand needs first and only then can we consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them. We also need, I will give way to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be grateful to the honourable gentleman forgivingly on that point. Does he recognise that the concessions that the Government the concessions that the Government have brought forward and the amendments before us today are, amendments before us today are, indeed, making sure that we are getting it the right way around? So, in the terms of reference, it is in the terms of reference, it is very clear that it is about a fair and fit for the future assessment rather than to generate proposals for future savings.

It is extremely explicit in the terms of reference. Will he agree with me that the bill before us today does allow us to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before us today does allow us to get the Timms Review done and then bring forward proposals on that act? Thank the honourable member for her intervention and for that, I her intervention and for that, I cannot agree, but I will partly explain why in a moment. We also need a more honest assessment of the financial situation which has been financial situation which has been used to justify this drastic cut because the wrong diagnosis leads to because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions.

The dramatic use in PIP payments is at least partly driven by other Government partly driven by other Government policy. Perhaps one quarter of the rises due to simply raising the rises due to simply raising the pension age. Large number of people more likely to be disabled are being more likely to be disabled are being pushed out of pension support into benefits above. The State Pension and current taxation past contributions, so the impact is immediate. From that state point of view, this which is cost neutral.

In fact, since state pensions are usually much higher than PIP payments, perhaps double, then the state is not interested in saving. We also consider other factors such as increasing NHS waiting-list post COVID, then it is clear that the rise of demand, while still significant, worrying, and worthy of significant, worrying, and worthy of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He mentioned the NHS and the waiting lists does he share my waiting lists does he share my concern about the criteria and the diagnosis needing to be made by an NHS professional in the course of NHS professional in the course of their duties people may not have access to that, and also the requirement for the condition to be considered lifelong, NHS professionals are unlikely to say that conditions like schizophrenia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar are lifelong because they don't want to tie people down to that? I very much agree, that is an additional concern. The implication has been by both this government and the previous ones that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people exaggerating chasing and people exaggerating additions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. All these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the bill now make a fresh to pull the bill now make a fresh start.

Denying adequate support today only shift the burden tomorrow to social care, to emergency services, to our already overstretched NHS. We have been overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once but three times in our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

36 is a chance to show we are listening. Thank you. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today particularly those that call for
15:32
Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle MP (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Labour)
-
-
delays to legislation. I think we are one year into our five year term, 20% of this parliament is gone, and the public needs to see progress not further delay. I am mindful that ministers have done a huge amount already to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. We shall recall that in July last year, the Department of Work and Pensions was under formal investigation from the equality Human Rights Commission for unlawful treatment of disabled people.

I think this government has made considerable progress since then in trying to rebuild trust, including through measures in this bill and linked to this bill like abolishing the Work Capability Assessment. I have been here 10 years, some say it might feel longer, but I campaigned as chair of the disability benefits Consortium before entering this place to abolish the Work Capability Assessment. I know that disabled people and organisations are very much grateful and I am thankful for their support for that measure being included in that wider package the government is bringing forward.

I'm also mindful, it seems to have been lost in some of the debate on this, that in my constituency, claimant of Personal Independence Payment will rise in this parliament, and the spending on their support will continue to rise this parliament. And that the 12,700 Universal Credit claimants in my community will get an additional payment under this government's plans. The first-ever above inflation rise on Universal Credit. There is much to gain and much to support by disabled people and organisations in the package the government has brought forward.

I welcome the plans to support more disabled people into work. We need to challenge ourselves a little more in this place about some of the language of vulnerability. Vulnerability and being automatically vulnerable because of having a health condition is not in line with the disability. It is something that disabled people find patronising and offensive. We need
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page