Access to Work Scheme

Debate between David Chadwick and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Member is right to focus on retention, which is an equally important part of the scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. He is right to underline the issues for people who are disabled and want to get into work. Many employers wish to ensure that those people have the opportunity, but they are unable to expedite the system, through no fault of theirs. They want to employ people, but they cannot because the Government are falling short. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be a better arrangement and better co-operation in relation to not just those who want to work, but those who want to give them jobs?

[David Chadwick]

Yes. The hon. Member is right to mention how everyone can benefit from people getting back into work—both employers and disabled people looking for work can benefit—but the system is not enabling that to happen. Self-employed individuals, in particular, are losing their businesses, and employers—in particular smaller employers—are being left with costs and uncertainty. A scheme designed to support work is, in its current state, preventing it.

Alongside the delays, there are growing concerns about how the scheme operates in practice. My constituents report being forced to reapply from scratch at renewal, even when nothing has changed. We know that we have the technology to deal with that problem. They face long reconsideration processes, struggle to contact caseworkers and in some instances cannot even access the system properly, because of their needs. This does not sound like a system working with people; it feels like one that they are having to fight to get through.

There are also serious concerns about funding decisions. I have been made aware of cases in which support has been cut significantly, not because needs have changed, but because funding is benchmarked against generic regional job market rates, which will punish people living longer, particularly in Wales, where we have lower than average salaries. That misunderstands the entire purpose of the scheme.

We are seeing a convergence of problems: delays getting into the system, barriers to navigating it and reductions in support once people are in it. The result is clear: people are being kept out of work because the Government’s system is not working for them. That creates a fundamental contradiction: the Government want more disabled people in work, and disabled people have plenty to offer, but encouragement without support does not represent opportunity.

When Access to Work fails, people fall out of employment, businesses miss out on talent, and more people are pushed into economic inactivity. At a time when we must indeed focus on growth, we should be strengthening the system, not allowing it to fall behind. We need urgent steps to tackle the backlog. We need a system that is faster, clearer and accessible. We need funding decisions that reflect the reality of specialist support.

Ultimately, this is about whether disabled people can participate equally in working life. Many disabled people are desperate to work, but they are being let down by this scheme, which has helped so many people over the years. I urge the Minister to recognise the urgency of the issue and set out how the Government will act.

Meat Exports to the EU

Debate between David Chadwick and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick]

I am going to continue for a bit.

Welsh lamb is not a niche export; it is foundational to the rural economy. Welsh food and drink exports were worth £813 million in 2023, with around three quarters going to EU markets. The EU remains the destination for around a third of Welsh lamb exports, around 90% of Welsh beef exports and the vast majority of Welsh dairy exports. Markets such as Germany and the Netherlands matter because they are the natural entry points into the European food system, but lamb cannot sit at borders while paperwork is argued over. A delay of hours can strip value from a load; a rejected consignment can wipe out profit for a week. Farmers tell me it is now easier to export lamb thousands of miles away than to our nearest neighbours. That is not control; it is self-harm.

No doubt Ministers will point to headlines claiming that red tape has been slashed, but the reality for farmers tells a different story. Export health certificates are still required, veterinary sign-offs remain mandatory and checks are still taking place. Costs are still being borne by producers, and that eats into their profit margins. Because there is no settled SPS agreement, enforcement continues to vary from port to port and country to country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. To add to the complexity of the matter—there is always more complexity —on 1 January, new rules for veterinary medicines took effect in Northern Ireland, meaning that 40% of veterinary medicine pack sizes available to NI farmers could be discontinued due to the requirement for separate authorisations from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does he not agree that the large part that Northern Ireland plays in the supply of lamb and meat—worth up to some £4 billion—must be considered as part of the UK’s discussion with the EU? We should not be taken as a third nation—that is no solution. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.

[David Chadwick]

The economic impact of this issue is being felt across the United Kingdom, and that is because there is still no settled SPS agreement. That has resulted in uncertainty, and uncertainty is poison for trade. Many smaller producers have already been cut out of EU markets, unable to cope with the administrative burden and added cost.

There is also a clear imbalance in how trade is being managed. Under the border target operating model, checks are meant to be risk based, yet medium-risk products of animal origin imported from the EU into Great Britain face physical inspection rates of around 1%, while equivalent UK exports to the EU face inspection rates of between 15% and 30%. That is not a level playing field. It places heavier costs on UK farmers, while leaving them exposed to unfair competition from imports.

That imbalance is compounded by repeated delays to the UK’s own border controls. The transitional staging period for the border target operating model has been extended again, this time to January 2027—the sixth delay already. Farming unions have warned that, without effective border checks, the UK remains vulnerable to animal disease. Those concerns have been echoed by Parliament’s own Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

None of this is accidental. These barriers exist because the UK chose to leave the single market. That choice was driven by a Conservative party that was willing to sacrifice British farming, and it was championed by Reform, who promised farmers frictionless trade while delivering friction at every stage of the export process. Welsh farmers were told that they would keep their markets, that nothing would change for them and that they were taking back control, but what they got was more paperwork, higher costs and fewer buyers. In Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, farming underpins entire communities. When lamb exports become uneconomic, investment stalls, confidence drains away and young farmers begin to question whether there is a future for them. Rural Wales is hollowing out through constant, grinding pressure on farming communities and the wider supply chains that they support.

Efforts to restore relations with our nearest trading partners and pursue an SPS agreement with the EU are welcome, but such an agreement must be developed in close collaboration with industry, and it must be delivered urgently. Farmers cannot wait indefinitely while negotiations drag on. Any agreement should be concluded as soon as is practical and no later than the end of this Parliament, in order to protect market access and prevent further damage to the sector.

Welsh farmers were promised certainty, continuity and opportunity. Instead, they got the Conservatives’ and Reform’s Brexit, and a deal that still does not exist. This debate is about facing that reality, owning the consequences and finally doing right by the people who feed this country and sustain our rural communities. Backing Welsh and British farming means more than slogans; it means restoring access to markets.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Debate between David Chadwick and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the achievements of the Liberal Democrats in power, particularly the fact that we have a long record of standing up for rural communities. The physical hills that Welsh farmers have to climb are getting steeper. Energy and fertiliser costs are rising, subsidy schemes are changing and farm incomes are falling. To make matters worse, the Government’s family farm tax threatens to further strain their livelihoods. Those are just a few of the battles that farmers face. Their industry deserves a fair market, and it is for that reason that the Liberal Democrats introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator during the coalition years.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to refer to the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. In my constituency of Strangford, we are blessed to have many local suppliers and farmers, which have created jobs and opportunity. They supply to large shops and supermarkets, and are very much an integral part of the community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to ensure fair treatment, and to ensure that local suppliers can take advantage of fair payment and commission terms? We need fair play—and we need fair prices for the products we produce.

[David Chadwick]

Absolutely. We need greater transparency down the entire supply chain and fair conditions for everyone involved in the food system. The GCA was established in response to multiple scandals where large supermarkets used their market power to take advantage of local producers. It has helped to improve fairness in the food supply chain. Since its introduction in 2014, the Groceries Code Adjudicator has made significant progress, and the number of issues around the treatment of farmers by supermarkets and retailers has fallen. It is my belief, and that of many farmers and producers that I represent, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be strengthened and better resourced, and its remit expanded if we are to ensure fairness in our supply chain.