Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liam Conlon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work of Irish Community Services in Bexleyheath is outstanding, and I will discuss some of the work of other community groups shortly. We absolutely need to see an indefinite disregard.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member not only on securing this debate, but on leading the charge on this issue in the House and commanding such enormous and widespread cross-party support. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied? We all agree with what he is calling for, and we hope the Minister may agree with it later, too. However, it is not good enough just to agree. There is a real urgency about getting justice for those women who were affected, and for their descendants and families, to whom we all pay tribute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This is an absolute travesty; we have heard of this situation time and time again, with many different examples. I personally pay tribute to Philomena—my constituent—and to her daughter Jane and her grandson Josh, who are here today, for their courage in speaking about their story. I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) on securing this debate and on leading the charge in this House. Many organisations have been campaigning on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will deliver good news today and also convey a sense of urgency.

We can hear from the speeches in this debate the jarring gap between the profound sense of wrong that happened on the one hand and the “Computer says no” system on the other. I hope sincerely that the Government recognise that gap, come to the right conclusion and respond with urgency and with compassion. That is the very least that the affected women, their families and their descendants deserve.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) on securing this debate and on pursuing his private Member’s Bill. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon.

It is worth reflecting on the stories we have heard. I particularly enjoyed the account shared by the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and it is great to see Christina in the Public Gallery. The point about the age profile for compensation was particularly poignant to hear; these are women who have lived their entire lives with that uncertainty. I was particularly interested as well in the account from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); I do not have the same community of Irish men and women in my constituency, so it was good to hear of the connection that he has and of the impact and role of the Irish community in his constituency.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has the privilege, if that is the word, of having Philomena in her constituency—

[Daisy Cooper]

An honour.

[Rebecca Smith]

An honour—yes, I like that. It is also great to see Jane and Joshua here.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) always makes very good local connections and shares his own stories so well. This has been a really interesting debate and, although we had the break for the Division, we have been able to hear some good stories.

As the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge has rightly set out, the mother and baby institutions payment scheme was introduced by the Irish Government to compensate those who had spent time in those institutions in the Republic of Ireland. Today we have heard many of the stories of those who were impacted. Anyone who has watched the tear-jerking film “Philomena”, starring Judi Dench and Steve Coogan—unlike some hon. Members, I have been able to see it, and I admit to having cried—will be familiar with this story. It is very moving to see the impact that the backgrounds of these men and women have had on them for the rest of their lives.

As we have heard, an astonishing 35,000 single mothers gave birth in these homes throughout the 1900s. These women were ostracised and pushed into the homes so that society could forget them. The most infamous case is of Tuam house, where 802 infants tragically died over a 36-year period. Across those 18 institutions in Ireland, 9,000 children died. We are not just talking about the women. Children lost their lives as well: 15% of all the children who lived in those homes. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that was a travesty.

It is clear that there is agreement across this House on an issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge has alluded to in his private Member’s Bill. Although no amount of money can replace the loss of a child or atone for the trauma that was inflicted, these single mothers have rightly received compensation that ranges from €5,000 to €125,000, depending on their stay. The question is whether the compensation those women received should have an impact on the benefits that they are entitled to as a UK resident. There are 13,000 surviving inhabitants of those homes who moved here to start a new life free from the judgment of the Irish society that they grew up in. As of April 2025, 6,462 applications had been made, with just 11% from UK residents. That means that 700 of those applications are from UK residents, stripping these women of access to benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to. We have heard that described plainly across the Chamber in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine, and to do so in a debate on such an important and emotive subject. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing it. He has spoken passionately today, as have all Members who contributed, and has done so consistently in his fight to bring forward Philomena’s law. I want to say on the record what a champion he has been for that cause.

As we have heard, this was a painful, scandalous and shameful episode in Ireland’s history. It is impossible to imagine the trauma that the women and children who were sent to these institutions suffered; the heartbreaking accounts of their experiences are distressing in the extreme. What happened to them is truly appalling—all the more so because it was only in 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. It is absolutely right that the victims of the scandal are at last receiving some kind of redress through the mother and baby institutions payment scheme in Ireland.

The payments can never, ever put right the terrible suffering that those women were forced to endure. No amount of compensation can make up for what they lost, but compensation for them and their family members is an important acknowledgment of the wrong that was done. Norma Foley, the Irish Government’s Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, recently highlighted how disappointed she is that not all the religious bodies involved have offered meaningful compensation. It appears that only two religious orders have contributed to the scheme in Ireland, so there is still quite some way to go to ensure that there is proper accountability and responsibility for the impact that time in these institutions had on the lives of those women and their children.

What does this scandal mean for the United Kingdom and our social security system? Due to the close historic ties between Ireland and this country, there has always been movement of people from one to the other. My constituency of Stretford and Urmston, much like that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), has a long history of drawing in families from Ireland, which contributed to the economic and cultural growth of the area and helped to shape the communities of today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) continued the theme highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford of the north-west’s significant Irish population and the contributions made by those Irish people to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool in particular. Other Members referenced the same thing in their communities, and the point is not lost on me. The same is true for many of the constituencies that are not represented here today, particularly urban areas where there is a significant Irish diaspora.

It is therefore not surprising that some of the people affected by this scandal are now living in the United Kingdom. The Irish Government estimate the number of applicants to the compensation scheme will be in the region of 34,000. They estimate around 40%—13,600—are living outside Ireland, with the majority assumed to be in the UK, though some will be in other countries too, particularly the United States.

However, as queried by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is no way of knowing exactly how many of those affected and now living in this country are also in receipt of an income-related benefit. On the question of cost, it is simply not possible to give a firm figure or determine the implications of the change, were it to be adopted. It is even less possible to speculate on how many might, at some point in the future, claim an income-related benefit. That is an important factor.

Income-related benefits such as universal credit, housing benefit and pension credit provide a taxpayer-funded safety net for people in various circumstances and on low incomes. The nature of those benefits and the rules under which they operate are approved by Parliament. To ensure that money is directed to those most in need, rules have been developed over many years setting out not only conditions of entitlement, but how a person’s financial and personal circumstances affect the amount they receive. That means income, such as earnings or pensions as well as capital and any savings above a certain level are generally taken into account; that is the point of income-related benefits.

The more money a person already has, the less they can expect to receive from the taxpayer. However, the social security system recognises that, in certain cases, the money or capital someone has can be ignored—or, as the terminology has it, disregarded. In pension credit, for instance, there are 28 separate categories of capital that are disregarded. Examples relevant for today’s debate include various compensation payments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge and others highlighted some examples. These disregards cover medical compensation, such as payments in respect of infected blood; payments in respect of an historic wrong, as was highlighted, including those concerning Windrush and child migrants; and payments resulting from specific events, including payments relating to Grenfell tower and the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund.

The number of disregards has grown over time as Parliament has responded to tragic events and scandals, such as the recent Post Office scandal. We must not forget that income-related benefits are paid for through general taxation, so disregarding a compensation payment comes at a cost to the taxpayer. That is why, when deciding whether a new disregard is appropriate—unfortunately, we live in a world where tragic events and scandals happen—several factors are considered: where the event took place, who is responsible, how many people are affected, and whether it is proportionate to amend the law.

What all the examples I have given have in common is that the circumstances that gave rise to that compensation payment either occurred in this country or involved events for which the UK Government have direct responsibility or liability. The events that are the subject of this debate were a truly horrendous episode in Ireland’s history. We heard multiple references to the film “Philomena,” which I saw a very long time ago—not knowing what it was about, but because Judi Dench was in it. I will watch anything she is in, as I think she is amazing. As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, the film hits particularly hard as one watches it and sees what people endured.

Philomena’s example, what we have heard from her and her family’s Member of Parliament, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and Christina’s story, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), show just how significant an impact these events had on so many lives. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the Irish Government have taken responsibility, apologised and set up a compensation scheme to address the wrongs that occurred.

Let me address the Opposition spokesperson’s intervention on the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about those from Northern Ireland who spent time in mother and baby institutions. My understanding is that Northern Ireland is setting up its own scheme, but of course social security matters are devolved to its institutions. Whether Northern Ireland and the Republic establish a reciprocal agreement is a matter for them—such is the nature of devolution. I assure the hon. Lady that a scheme is in development.

Before securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which shows how strongly and passionately he cares about this issue. I assure him that both the Minister for pensions and the Minister for Social Security and Disability—I am sorry to disappoint everybody, but I am neither—are already carefully considering whether to legislate to disregard payment from Ireland’s mother and baby institutions payment scheme.

A decision on that has not yet been made, partly because, to answer the hon. Member for South West Devon, conversations are ongoing across the Government, with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials, as well as directly with the Irish Government, about whether it is possible and how it might work. It is raised at that level frequently, because of the historical relationship between the two nations. I realise that Members will be disappointed that I am unable to confirm today whether a scheme will be put in place.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is not unusual in this House for Ministers to say that things are actively under consideration. In a previous Parliament, I have been in this room when Ministers have said that repeatedly. If it is under active consideration, can the Minister please say when that might conclude? Is he in a position to give us a deadline today, or is he able instead to write to every Member that has contributed to this debate within the next 14 days with a deadline?

[Andrew Western]

I am going to disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, because I am unable to give her that assurance today. Conversations between the UK and Irish Governments, as well as conversations between Government Departments, are ongoing. I do not want to suggest that we are leaning one way or another, or that a decision is imminent.

The hon. Member for South West Devon set out how unprecedented a decision this would be. We regularly receive requests for scandals and issues that have happened in other countries to be considered for a disregard in this country. For instance, when the coalition Government were in power, the Magdalene Laundries was one such example where a disregard was not put in place. More recently, we saw this with the Australian child abuse scandal and with Gurkhas seeking a disregard to the 28-day rule around the allocation of pension credit.

This would be a significant change with broader ramifications, but that is not to say that we are not looking to take that change forward. Thought still needs to be given to this, and conversations need to continue. I am grateful to all Members for the opportunity to set out the current conversations, and to hear directly about people’s experiences.

[Andrew Western]

I do not want to openly disagree with the hon. Lady, but I gently say that social security matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, although of course it seeks alignment on issues wherever it is able to do so, and I welcome that. The fact that it is looking at its own scheme related to people from Northern Ireland who were in mother and baby institutions in Northern Ireland points to the flexibility within the devolved system. However, I accept the point that she makes about the importance of ensuring that, were the UK Government to apply a disregard, we would look to have conversations with the Northern Ireland Assembly about that also being applicable in its jurisdiction.

As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not just to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony about Christina’s story and more information about Philomena’s story.

[Daisy Cooper]

I know that the Minister is just about to respond to the fact that we have heard powerful testimony. I understand that he is not in a position to set out any deadlines today, so I implore him to make a different commitment. Will he please commit today, in front of the many people who have joined us, to use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between our constituents who are affected by this issue and the relevant Minister, so that they can speak directly to those in power who may be in a position to make decisions in due course? Will he please commit to doing everything he can to ensure that our constituents have their voices heard by those at the top?

[Andrew Western]

I will happily take that request back to the Department; clearly, it is a matter for the relevant Minister. However, I can perhaps liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who has led this campaign, to see whether such a meeting is possible, and I will happily update all Members on whether or not we are able to convene that meeting.

As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony. I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate, everyone who has come along to listen and everyone who agreed to have their story told. As I have said, no decision has been made yet. We are very much listening to those who have been impacted by this issue. It would be a significant change—setting a precedent—but none the less we are keen, as I have said, to continue talks with the Irish Government and across Government before coming to a decision on this matter.

Welfare Cap

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

We published in November an extensive reform programme for the Department to get Britain working. We showed how in some parts of the country—I will come to this in more detail shortly—people have been abandoned and their labour market has not supported enough good jobs for a very long time. We showed how, by acting on better health and better local support services, we will reintroduce ambition into our support services.

We want to help people get into a job that will support their family finances and help our economy thrive. We have a huge change programme underway in the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will be doing even more than we set out in that White Paper. The challenge is huge, but the potential is also massive. I worry about everybody who is out of work, but particularly our young people, who have effectively been thrown on the scrapheap. It is a disaster now in exactly the same way that it was a disaster, brought about by the economic turbulence that I grew up in, in the 1980s, which is the period the right hon. Member refers to. We will therefore take the challenge of restoring employment—proper employment—in this country extremely seriously.

In doing that, I want to talk about the Government’s wider responsibilities, not just in reforming the social security system but far beyond that. You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I return to the founding document of our social security system, the Beveridge report. In 1942, William Beveridge identified the

“establishment of comprehensive health and rehabilitation services, and maintenance of employment…as necessary conditions of success”

in social security.

That lesson is forgotten again and again in this country, and we will never have a social security system that functions well unless we have an NHS that works and we maintain policies designed to move towards full employment. Social security cannot soak up every single problem in this country if the Government forget their wider responsibilities. I note that the Beveridge report considered the consequences of war and the injury to the nation that that had brought about. In many ways, we ought to learn the lessons of the pandemic: that the health of the nation can never be taken for granted and that, in setting us on the right path in terms of both health and employment, we can plot a course towards a more sustainable future. As I have said, is it any wonder that our social security system is broken given the health of the nation, given what we have been through and given the last Government’s neglect of the NHS and the state of our labour market?

To look backwards again for a moment, we know that in our country’s economic history, we had periods when whole towns and cities were deindustrialised and left to fend for themselves. Economies simply failed, and while great progress has been made, including in my constituency, in my city region in Merseyside and in other places whose economies have moved on greatly since that time, sadly, too many have never properly recovered. As a result, we have a labour market that simply fails to offer good work everywhere.

As part of our “Get Britain Working” White Paper analysis, we found that when students are not counted, the inactivity rate, to give the example of Blackpool, is 29%. That is nearly a third of working age people. That can never be a good platform on which to build a thriving economy, and I am determined that we will turn it around.

More than half of the 20 local authorities with the highest rates of inactivity in England are in the north, while none are in the south-east. It is, however, far from a north-south divide. We have identified 14 types of labour markets in the United Kingdom and considered their features: what they share and what divides them. We want to identify those places that are furthest behind, precisely so that we can help.

It is not just the prevailing economic circumstances or what has happened in the recent past to a local authority that defeats people, but, unfortunately, the jobcentres that are supposed to be there to help. When we did our analysis for our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, we uncovered the record of the last Conservative Government. I was shocked to find that only around 8%—only 8%—of universal credit claimants in the “searching for work” group move into work from one month to the next. In the “no work requirements” group, 92% were still there after six months. That is the very definition of being on the scrapheap: no work and no help to get work. That is just failing people.

Then there is the price tag. Spending on universal credit and disability benefits was £10.9 billion higher than anticipated when the level of the welfare cap was calculated. That is a dreadful record. For the reasons that I set out earlier, the breach of the cap is unavoidable this year, but this Government are taking the action necessary to drive up opportunity in employment while driving down the benefits bill. Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, as I have mentioned, set out the biggest reforms to employment in a generation, with a radical new approach backed by £240 million of investment. We are overhauling our jobcentres and creating a new jobs and careers service, doing away with needless admin and freeing up work coach time, so that my colleagues can give real, high-quality support to people.

Although I am often disappointed in the help that people receive in jobcentres, I am never disappointed by what our work coaches do. The thing that lets the work coaches down is the system in which they work. For example, they are told that they can see someone for only 10 minutes. How are they supposed to help in 10 minutes? They have to carry out numerous admin checks that could be done with modern technology, when the person in front of them is just sat there waiting, not receiving any help. Our work coaches are full of ideas, full of local knowledge and full of determination that we will make a new system work. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to every single DWP member of staff who has embraced change with gusto.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

When I visited the jobcentre in St Albans last year I, too, was struck by the fantastic support given by some of the work coaches. However, I was also struck by what some of the jobseekers had to say. One said that she had been in full employment, but had to give up her job to look after her two children because they could not get the special educational needs and disabilities support that they needed in school. Another said that they were struggling with addiction and could not hold down a job because they could not get the support needed from the NHS. Does the Minister agree that, while our work coaches are doing a really good job, ultimately, we need to get our public services, particularly the NHS, back on their feet?

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Can we just take this moment to thank the DWP team in St Albans? They sound like they are doing a great job and they are also briefing their local MP, which is really good of them. I encourage all colleagues in the House to ensure that they have a regular catch-up with their jobcentre colleagues so that they know the kind of things that our work coaches have to deal with. Often, Members of Parliament can be quite helpful in putting people in touch with other organisations, so I encourage all colleagues to do as the hon. Lady has done.

On the point that the hon. Lady makes about SEND, she is absolutely right: this is a major barrier. If Members want to understand what a struggle to get to work and to stay in work looks like, they should ask the parent of a disabled child. This issue of where the effect of poverty and the SEND crisis can compound is being considered by the child poverty taskforce in particular. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: good public services and a good, strong economy go hand in hand. It is not “public services or a strong economy”—we called that ideology “austerity”, and it did not work. The two go hand in hand. We need to look in that rounded way to see how we can help people, and that is the approach that we are taking. We want to make every jobcentre in the country a place that people who are looking for work, and employers, will actually want to use. We know that what happens early on in a career echoes down the years; as I have said, our young people—the pandemic generation—were failed. That is why our youth guarantee will give every 18 to 20-year-old access to quality education, training or employment.

On top of that, we are working with local leaders who know their towns and cities best, supporting them to produce their own local “Get Britain Working” plans that join up work, health and skills to support their communities. I have mentioned the major fractures still in the UK economy following previous economic events that were not managed properly. That is how we know that the same thing just will not work everywhere. The DWP will reform itself so that we are able to localise support services, and we will work with local leaders to do that.

All of that will ensure that we help people to enjoy the benefits that good work brings to wellbeing—and I do mean “good work”. The choice in this country should never be between the scar of unemployment and the scar of poor work that does nothing but keep people poor. Poor work does not reduce the pressure on our social security system; it just means more people working too hard for their poverty. That is why we will improve the security and quality of work through our plan to make work pay. We will create more good jobs in every part of the country with a modern industrial strategy and local growth plans. Together, they will help us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate.

We will create the conditions for success in social security. As I have outlined, the changes made to social security were ill-thought through. A fresh approach is needed to make our social security system sustainable, and we will build that system to give people the help that they need to find great jobs and feel the benefit of work. We want to tackle poverty and target support at those who need it most. We will set out our proposals in a Green Paper on reforming the health and disability system in the spring. We will work with disabled people and their organisations to get that right.

A strong social security system needs the confidence of us all. Anyone might suddenly find themselves unwell or with the extra costs that children bring, and we all hope one day to enjoy the benefits of the state pension, so we must protect the social security system now and in the future. Not only did we confirm at the autumn Budget that we would keep a welfare cap in place with a margin of 5% to account for the volatility of recent forecasts, but later this year we will publish a new annual report on social security spending across Government, setting out the DWP’s plan to ensure that it is on a sustainable path. The days of setting spending targets without a proper plan to meet them are over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Years of mismanagement by the previous Conservative Government damaged our economy, hit people’s living standards and left our public services on their knees—especially our NHS and care—so it is no wonder that we have seen the welfare bill go up. The Conservatives left GP and hospital waiting times soaring. They also saw staff vacancies spiralling, and local public health funding was slashed. The cancer treatment target has been missed every year since 2015. They promised 6,000 GPs and left government with fewer of them. Of course, the 40 new hospitals fell apart—literally in some cases—leading to inefficiencies in our health service as staff and patients battle cramped and crumbling buildings. I remember a former Conservative Prime Minister standing on the steps of No. 10 and promising to fix social care once and for all, but, as we know, millions of people around the UK are left to pick up the pieces of a broken social care system.

That disgraceful legacy and the blatant mismanagement of our economy has left millions of people unable to work due to long-term illness and having to rely on support instead, impacting growth and productivity. Under the last Conservative Government, the number of people not looking for work, especially due to ill health, reached record levels, and Government spending on welfare went up drastically as a result. Their mismanagement has left so many people unable to seek work and reliant instead on Government support.

We Liberal Democrats have always understood that a healthy economy requires healthy people. As I have said a number of times in the House, health and wealth are two sides of the same coin. The best way to bring down welfare spending is for the Government to act with urgency and ambition to end the crisis in our NHS and care, empowering people to join the workforce and reducing the need for welfare support in the first place.

The Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy has had a direct impact on decisions being made today. At informal assessments in 2020, 2021 and 2023, the OBR clearly said that the welfare cap was on track to be breached this year, but the new Labour Government must do far more to fix our health and care services so that fewer people require Government support in the first place. I have to say that the Conservative party has lost every right to criticise the current situation when its fingerprints of failure are all over it.

We have previously discussed the impact of the Government’s national insurance contributions rise and other changes. The Government have said repeatedly that these changes are inevitable as a way to fund the NHS, but they know, and we know, that some of this is really not needed. The national insurance contributions rise will impact our GPs, dentists, public health providers, primary care providers, pharmacists, social care providers and hospices—the list goes on. Those people and businesses are propping up our NHS.

I use this opportunity once again to encourage the Government to reverse the national insurance contributions rise and look to other means of raising those funds. Fundamentally, the best way to bring down welfare spending is for the Government to act with urgency and ambition to end the crisis in our NHS and social care. We Liberal Democrats made that our No. 1 priority during the general election, and with 72 MPs, it remains our No. 1 priority in this House.

International Investment Summit

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. I also thank her for her support when she was not in this place and I was further back on these Benches, and we worked together on some of the issues under focus today.

We Liberal Democrats want Britain to be one of the most attractive places in the world for business to invest. We want to see responsible, sustainable businesses investing in tackling the climate emergency and creating jobs, growth and wealth, some of which should be invested into our health, education and public services. I welcome the Government deciding to hold an international investment summit within their first 100 days. It sends an excellent signal to the world that UK plc is open for business, and we Liberal Democrats welcome and support that move.

We welcome, too, the announcements about the revival of the industrial strategy and a new strategy for the British Business Bank. We look forward to scrutinising those plans as a constructive Opposition. However, we also know that this Government have to rebuild not only the economy, but our country’s reputation.

It is an enormous relief that some of the dark days of the last Government are—I hope—behind us. We had the tweeting diplomacy of two former Prime Ministers, which made us look like a small country on the international stage. We had the half-baked Brexit deal, which has wrapped up small businesses in red tape and reams of paperwork. We had the rolling back on net zero and the flip-flopping fiasco on HS2, which created uncertainty, scared off investors and put the jobs of the future at risk. We also had the sheer incompetence of a Government who had forgotten how to negotiate. In my former role as my party’s health spokesperson, talking to some of the pharmaceutical companies involved in the voluntary scheme for branded medicines, pricing and access negotiations, it became patently clear that many were putting their investment abroad and not in this country. That investment was lost on the Conservatives’ watch.

Even though I welcome many of the things that the Labour Government have proposed and are bringing forward, there are some notable gaps, and it is on those gaps that I wish to focus. We know today’s debate is about international investment, but I urge the Government to think about local investment in this country too. Small businesses are the engine of growth and the backbone of our economy. They are the heartbeat of our communities, but they are really struggling to invest. There is one major reason for that: the broken business rates system. It is absolutely absurd that small bricks and mortar businesses on our high streets up and down the country see their business rates going up while Amazon warehouses see their business rates going down. It is a disgrace. I urge the Labour Government, in the strongest possible terms, to make the Budget this autumn the final one in which business rates are a permanent feature. They should be scrapped and replaced with a commercial landowner levy. I urge the Labour Government to act on that as soon as possible.

To make it even worse, we know that in many parts of the country, where high streets are not in a good state, there are small businesses that want to invest in good environmental things. They want to invest in solar panels, insulation, ventilation and bike sheds—things that would be good for business and create a sense of community, tackle the climate emergency and improve the public realm. Yet if they invest in those things, their business rates can go up. That is absolutely nuts, and I urge all colleagues to get behind my call to make the upcoming Budget the final one in which business rates are a permanent feature.

The other point I will talk about is skills. The Government have talked a lot about investing in infrastructure, housing and big things that we can build, but skills are so important. In my constituency, we have a phenomenal organisation called GEM Cable Solutions, a leading defence and aerospace company that makes bespoke cables and fibre optics using precision manufacturing. That means individual people making handmade cables that are flying things into space—it is extraordinary. But can the company get the highly qualified engineers that it needs in this country? No, it often cannot, because we are competing on the international stage for some of the finest engineering talent. At the same time, under the last Government, the company could not get that talent from abroad either, so I urge the new Government to bring forward a skills strategy as soon as possible, consult with other parties, and ensure that our small businesses can get those skills.

My third point is about the climate jobs of the future. I know the UK Infrastructure Bank has been rebranded the National Wealth Fund, and has attracted £7.3 billion in funds already. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the new wealth fund will have an explicit remit to support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions. Finally, it is no secret that Brexit has wrapped up our small businesses in red tape, and that they are dealing with reams of paperwork. We have to remove as many trade barriers to our small businesses as possible. I urge the Government to bring something forward on that front as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sarah Russell to make her maiden speech.

Carer’s Allowance

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

As the hon. Member knows, the Department is not responsible for the delivery of social security benefits in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that Northern Ireland’s Department for Communities will be keeping a close eye on the debate and will want to take his points into account.

This problem is one of the numerous ways in which our social security system is failing the people of this country, with 2.8 million left out of work because they are unwell and more than 4 million children growing up poor, and we have therefore moved fast to fix the foundations of the DWP. That includes our setting up a taskforce to tackle child poverty, extending the household support fund for six months, and holding the first meeting of our new Labour Market Advisory Board. The board’s expertise and fresh thinking will help us break down barriers to work, such as an inability to balance paid work with family care.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This Government have talked about a duty of candour. Can the Minister give an assurance that if people working at the DWP have information about maladministration and poor management of the service that they have witnessed and wish to come forward with that information, they will be protected as whistleblowers?

[Alison McGovern]

Obviously whistleblowing is very important. The Hillsborough law that is being introduced is not my responsibility, so the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot go over it extensively, but I will say, as someone who worked on the Hillsborough issue for many years, that it is very important to me personally.

These problems are significant, and given the scale of the challenges, we will not be able to solve all of them overnight, but we have taken important first steps, including tackling the issue of overpayments of carer’s allowance related to earnings. We have all heard the stories of some of the thousands of carers who have been affected, we have all heard and know about the stress and anxiety that it has caused them, and we all want—I hope—to establish the facts.

To address this problem, we must first truly understand what has gone wrong. That is why the DWP has announced today an independent review of overpayments of carer’s allowance that have exceeded the entitlement threshold. The review will investigate how the overpayments have occurred, what can best be done to support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of such problems occurring in future. We are delighted that Liz Sayce OBE has agreed to lead the review. My colleagues the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), have already met representatives of Carers UK, along with carers themselves, to discuss their report on overpayments, and we will consider the findings of that report alongside the independent review.

Covid-19: Disability-Inclusive Response

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate, on a topic that she knows is close to my heart.

Without doubt, the pandemic’s impact on the disabled has been absolutely catastrophic. During the lockdown period, almost seven in 10 people with a learning difficulty have had their care packages reduced or cut completely, which the Disability Law Service says is illegal. We all need to hear assurances from the Government that the easements will be repealed and never repeated.

Children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities have also been spectacularly disadvantaged by the pandemic. In a Westminster Hall debate in January, a number of Members of different parties voiced concerns about how SEND children and their families were struggling to get their education, health and care plans. The challenges of home schooling have been well documented. It has had a huge effect on SEND children and their families. Organisations such as Scope and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are doing incredible work in producing online resources for parents, but we still need more. Parents and families are still telling me that they are struggling to get the laptops and specialist equipment that they need. When will the Government get that much- needed kit to every single child, so that they have a fighting chance to learn during covid? With reports that almost one in five SEND children have been out of school since lockdown, will the Government produce a dedicated plan to help SEND children and their families to get the education that they deserve and to which they are entitled?

The UK is home to a world-leading disability creative arts sector. Many of its members fall into a similar category to ExcludedUK, with freelancers having received absolutely no Government support at all. Without help, these disabled creatives could completely disappear from our screens, theatres and comedy circuits. They could become invisible in our public realm and debate. Will the Minister therefore heed calls from the UK Disability Arts Alliance and commit specific resources to those who are clinically vulnerable and at risk of becoming invisible in creative content?

There is, as we have heard from other Members today, a risk to jobs. As we head into a recession with the prospect of job losses it is vital that those disabled people who are in jobs can be kept in them, because it is so much harder for disabled people and all those with protected characteristics to get into the workplace in the first instance. Will the Government look at urgently amending section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 to empower, but not require, all employers to look at retaining workers with disabilities or other protected characteristics during the redundancy process?

Other hon. Members have mentioned the need for an awareness-raising campaign for disabled and other people who are exempt from face covering. On 15 July I asked the Government whether they would run such a campaign, and on 18 August I received a rather peculiar answer about dentistry and personal protective equipment. I have chased it up and have not had a proper response yet, so I would be grateful if the Minister would look into it.

Finally, the House must lead by example. I urge every Member to petition the Government to re-establish the access to elected office fund. There is a shocking lack of disabled voices in the House of Commons, and I say that as an MP with a hidden disability. The entry cost for many disabled MPs is far too high and we need a proper fund to be established so that candidates of all political persuasions have the opportunity to stand and to represent their communities.