Manufacturing Skills

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is listening intently and I am sure he will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman and encourage him and all of us, as that is the purpose of us being here.

I will speak about Northern Ireland now. The issue is not unique to Northern Ireland, however skills shortages will be felt particularly acutely there. Northern Ireland boasts of major manufacturers, such as Spirit AeroSystems, Wrightbus, Harland & Wolff and Thales. Thales is one of the defence sector companies that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I visit at least once every year. I primarily go because the majority of workers at Thales come from my Strangford constituency. It has also been encouraging that Thales sets a target for apprenticeships every year and is always oversubscribed.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that apprenticeships are key going forward? We have to increase the number of apprenticeships, the skills base and the productivity—a problem that has beset successive Governments for many years.

[Jim Shannon]

I do. On the work that Thales does with students, it pays their student fees and gives them an incredible wage. Some of the young boys I know from Comber—they are young men now—who have taken the apprenticeships are working incredibly hard across the world in the Thales corporation. There is a network of small engineering firms to supply specialist services. Many of these skilled suppliers operate in and around my constituency of Strangford, making the local economy particularly vulnerable to manufacturing skills shortages.

Harland & Wolff is looking for 500 new workers. It has recruited some 500 already and is hoping to recruit another 500, so there is demand in Northern Ireland for skilled workers. It also offers apprenticeships. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 11% of employment in Northern Ireland, making it a vital contributor to the regional economy. Northern Ireland’s employment is currently the third lowest in the United Kingdom, standing just shy of 900,000. Further strengthening and investing in our manufacturing skills could help expand employment opportunities.

I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to her response. What discussions has she had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can enjoy the policy and strategy happening here? I join other Members and those who speak after me in calling on the Government to take urgent action to address the skills shortages across the manufacturing sector. The United Kingdom’s manufacturing and engineering skills gap is estimated to cost businesses more than £5 billion each year. Now is the time to act. It can take three to four years for apprentices to actually learn the skills and add to the companies they are employed with.

I am mindful that some 12 other Members wish to speak. Failing to act now will leave the next generation without the technical skills that employers need. Action must include improving women’s access to manufacturing careers. I am blessed and pleased that, with Harland and Wolff and Spirit, young ladies are getting the opportunity to gain engineering skills—and are taking it—but we could do more to encourage young women in particular to get into manufacturing careers and to create more opportunities for young people to gain practical industrial skills. By widening the talent pool, the Government can help secure the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland and indeed across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and beyond, protecting skilled manufacturing businesses. That is the purpose of Government, and that is the purpose of the hon. Member for Strangford. Let us see what we can do together.

Credit Unions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katrina Murray]

My hon. Friend is reading ahead in my speech about some of the things that the Government could do to extend and support the sector.

Before joining the NHS credit union, I was a regular visitor to my local community credit union—staffed entirely by volunteers—until I moved house and moved out of the common bond. For nearly 30 years, until it sadly folded in 2017, it was a source of savings and small loans for a community that was mostly cash based. It inhabited the premises that the Royal Bank of Scotland vacated when it closed the branch. Often, small community credit unions remain in places where commercial banks have pulled out. That closure reflects a wider challenge: some credit unions have scaled up and professionalised; others have struggled, in particular those volunteer-led credit unions serving working class and rural communities.

In that unique community-based role, credit unions can offer a vital partnership to support underserved or excluded communities, whether they are excluded by poverty or by geography. All too often, we have heard Members raise the swathes of local bank branch closures in their constituencies. Mine has been particularly affected, as commercial lending evolves and the local footprint of lenders diminishes. Credit unions have to be on both sides of that bridge: at the forefront of innovation but still able to provide traditional, accessible services in the community.

It is vital that we have an alternative to expensive credit, and credit unions have a strong role to play. When a household is financially vulnerable, one fault in their car or one failed fridge or freezer can be the difference between staying afloat and facing a downward spiral of increasingly costly credit. The resilience of having £1,000 in savings is the firewall that stops that spiral.

We have often discussed the positive impact of no-interest loans. Credit unions can play a vital part in the design and delivery of a no-interest loan offer, providing an alternative to financially vulnerable households who cannot rely on commercial lending. Pilots by Fair4All Finance show notable success when it comes to meeting emergency costs for white goods, such as a broken-down fridge, cooker or other essential household appliance. Over 70% of customers in the pilot were in the rented sector, either social housing or renting privately.

As the UK Government’s own materials acknowledge, credit unions offer basic savings and loan services, but increasingly they do much more. Large credit unions such as the Glasgow credit union, which grew out of the Glasgow city council credit union, offer mortgages. They offer financial inclusion, especially for people who may not feel served or welcome in the commercial banking sector. They are not for profit, member-owned and designed to be run with communities, not over them.

Despite all its strengths, the credit union sector faces significant headwinds. I will start with regulation. In recent conversations with the NHS credit union, a number of serious concerns were raised that are shared across the sector. Most notably, the Financial Ombudsman Service has begun applying the commercial lending standards known as the CONC—consumer credit sourcebook—rules to credit unions, despite the fact that they are exempt from those by law. The use of “good industry practice” by the ombudsman without transparency or a legislative basis has left credit unions exposed to a growing number of frivolous or opportunistic claims, often driven by predatory claims management companies.

When credit unions have challenged that with the Financial Conduct Authority, they have been referred back to the ombudsman, creating a regulatory echo chamber that shuts down scrutiny and ignores the fact that the CONC was never intended for mutuals. A superficial search of decisions of the ombudsman using “credit union” as a search term shows that it is the same credit union names that come up. For each case where a decision is listed, there are many more going through the process, with many cases being reopened, and it is an overwhelming burden for these small organisations to process them.

This matters, because it introduces risk and cost into organisations that exist to serve, not to profit. It creates uncertainty, stifles growth and undermines the Government’s ambition to support the co-operative and mutual sector. I urge the Minister to engage with those concerns and ensure regulatory clarity that supports, rather than stifles, credit unions.

Regulation is not the only challenge. Despite some growth, credit union penetration in Great Britain remains low. Just 4% of adults hold a credit union savings account, compared with 25% in Northern Ireland and 73% in the Republic of Ireland. While membership is rising, the number of credit unions continues to fall. To thrive, credit unions need to modernise. Many want to expand their digital offer, working with fintech providers to offer budgeting apps and even current accounts, but innovation costs money. Small unions—especially those still run by volunteers—lack the capacity to upgrade systems or train staff.

I welcome the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which gave unions more freedom to offer services such as hire purchase and insurance distribution, but more must follow. I support the proposals to allow investment in credit union service organisations, which could help unions to share IT, compliance and admin systems.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; many of us have been involved with credit unions for a number of years. She has spoken about the diversification of credit unions. Last night, the Chancellor said she is trying to encourage more people into market-based savings products. Does the hon. Lady agree that credit unions could embrace that concept, provided that they have the capacity and willingness to do it? That would allow everyone involved with credit unions to benefit over the longer term.

[Katrina Murray]

The Chancellor’s speech last night was very timely. Credit unions are particularly well placed to benefit thoroughly from that if they have support, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. We need to update the law in Northern Ireland so that the strength of the credit union movement there is able to match progress that has been made in GB.

The perception that credit unions are the poor man’s bank is a harmful stereotype that limits the sector’s growth. Credit unions are for everyone and should be seen as an act not only of charity but of good sense. They are member-owned, community-rooted and democratic. This is finance as it should be.

Credit unions are more than just lenders; they are educators, community builders and the agents of financial justice. But they are at risk from burdensome regulation, under-investment and a lack of understanding at the highest level of Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend and thank my Gaelic cousin, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), for setting the scene so very well. It is also good to see the Minister in his place. He is certainly becoming a regular in Westminster Hall—he is here almost as much as me.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Not quite!

[Jim Shannon]

That was meant as a compliment, by the way. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), brings a wealth of knowledge to the debate from his previous employment. I know that the debate will be greatly enhanced by the contributions of all.

I have long been an advocate of credit unions, and I have been thinking about how long I have been involved with them. The credit union in Greyabbey was run by the Orange lodge, which was the instigator. It made its hall available and managed the credit union under the auspices of credit unions elsewhere as the governing body.

I became involved to support credit unions and to start an account for my three boys. Only last week, I realised that moneys in that account had been gathering for some time and had been sitting in the transfer, because the account was transferred from Greyabbey to Newtownards credit union. My three boys have a bonus coming, which I will let them know about one of these days. I hope they will not spend it on wasteful living, but whatever they do, they do.

The credit union instilled in my boys and in me from an early age the value of saving and of ensuring that the saver can afford to pay back loans. That is the great thing about the credit union; we can put money in and borrow money out, but it is controlled in a way that means someone can live and borrow at a rate they can repay. That is a lesson that I learned from my mum and dad—of course, as we all learn from our mums and dads—and that has stayed with me these many years.

It is said that every pound is a prisoner to a Scots woman or man, but I think it is equally a prisoner to some of us in Northern Ireland; we are no different. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, there has been substantial growth of credit unions in Northern Ireland, particularly in membership and assets. Membership has doubled in the past decade, with 34% of the population now saving with a credit union, which is a massive figure.

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of introducing a capital disregard for payments made to UK residents under the Republic of Ireland’s Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and to introduce this debate. I welcome the Minister and thank him for giving his time to this important matter. I thank Members from across the House who are present today and have been so supportive. Ahead of this debate, over 100 MPs and peers on a cross-party basis signed an open letter in support of Philomena’s law. That included nearly every mainstream party in Britain and Northern Ireland. In the Public Gallery, we are joined by Irish community organisations and survivors, as well as Philomena Lee’s family—her daughter Jane and grandson Joshua.

I will begin by reminding Members what happened to Philomena Lee. Philomena was 18 years old when she became pregnant, and as a result was sent to Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, in Ireland. There, Philomena gave birth to her son, Anthony. They lived there for three years before she was forced to give him up for adoption. Anthony was sold to a couple in the United States; Philomena would never see him again.

Philomena’s story brought the scandal of Ireland’s mother and baby homes to a global audience through the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, where she is played by Dame Judi Dench. The film also stars Steve Coogan, who plays Martin Sixsmith, the BBC journalist who helped Philomena Lee in her heartbreaking search for her son. I am delighted that Philomena’s law has the support of Philomena Lee and her family, as well as the public backing of Steve Coogan. This campaign to change the law seeks justice for thousands of women like Philomena and their children, who were resident in Ireland’s mother and baby homes.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I and many others have watched the film. Does he agree that although many of us are very critical of the media—I am among them—on this occasion, a matter was brought to wider attention that otherwise might not have been? We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who were involved in the broadcasting of such a film.

[Liam Conlon]

I completely agree, and it shows the power of film and culture to tell such stories.

Mother and baby homes were open in Ireland for more than seven decades until the 1990s. During that time, 56,000 so-called fallen women were sent to those cruel institutions, and 57,000 children were born or placed in them. The women’s only crime was the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. There they suffered the most horrific mistreatment and abuse. Women were used as unpaid labour. Others, like Philomena, had their children forcibly adopted, sometimes overseas, never to be seen again. Too many women died in these institutions, and infant mortality was shockingly high.

Many survivors who escaped moved to Britain as a direct result of the mistreatment they experienced in mother and baby homes. In some cases, they came because they thought that disappearing from Ireland was the only way to protect their families’ reputations. Thousands came to this country for a fresh start and to build a new life, but they carried with them a great deal of internalised shame as well as the secret of what had happened to them. For lots of survivors, including Philomena, it was not until much later in life that they felt able to confront what had happened to them and share the details of those traumatic years with their families, often revealing long-lost relatives in the process.

It was a significant day in 2021 when survivors finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach Micheál Martin for what he described as:

“the profound, generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children”.

That was followed by the mother and baby institutions payment scheme to provide compensation for what happened to them. The scheme opened to applications in March 2021. It represents a measure of accountability for what happened and aims to acknowledge the suffering, and improve the circumstances, of former residents of mother and baby homes.

However, for more than 13,000 survivors living in Britain today, what was meant to be a token of acknowledgement and apology has ended up becoming an additional burden. That is because under our current rules, any money accepted through the payment scheme is considered to be savings, and it could see recipients lose any means-tested benefits—such as housing benefit, pension credit or financial support for social care—that they receive.

Pensions: Expatriates

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. For over 70 years, successive Governments have upheld the frozen pension policy. The result on those impacted has been not only a severe financial toll, but a heavy emotional burden. These individuals built their lives and careers in the United Kingdom, contributed their share through national insurance, and then, often later in life, moved abroad, in many cases to join family members. In doing so, they found themselves victims of an outdated policy. Most of them first became aware of the policy only after noticing that their state pension was not increasing in line with policies such as the triple lock, proudly founded by the Conservatives.

Let me be clear about what the frozen pension policy entails: British citizens who retire in certain countries—for example, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the Commonwealth, in fact—are denied the annual inflationary increases to their state pension. A person retiring to the USA sees their pension uprated yearly, but if they cross the border into Canada, those increases stop. That can result in elderly pensioners receiving as little as £60 a week on average, despite the current basic state pension being £176.45 a week. As many as four in 10 frozen pensioners report struggling to afford most necessities such as food or medicine.

It may be tempting to dismiss this as a problem “over there”, but British overseas pensioners are citizens who have lived, worked and grown up here. They remain citizens here; they are constituents, and, with the changes to overseas voting rules in 2024, many are now registered to vote in United Kingdom elections again. That means there are up to half a million voices who feel forgotten, neglected and increasingly betrayed by successive Governments.

Geography should not be an excuse for a lack of morality. British overseas pensioners are making their voices heard; over 75% want their representative to commit to ending frozen pensions. In 2016, at an all-party roundtable event, the now Deputy Prime Minister called for a change on frozen pensions and a commitment to finding a solution. I am glad she did so then; I am concerned that the Government are not doing so now. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is still the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed, the Government.

Since I first raised the issue in the House of Commons last year, I have read and heard many compelling stories—for example, that of Anne Puckridge. Now 100 years old, Anne remains an inspiration to all of us, having served in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force during world war two—I repeat: the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—serving six months in each branch. It is fair to state that she has paid her dues to this country. After the war, she lived and worked for the vast majority of her life in the United Kingdom, until she moved to Canada in 2001. She is one of around 60,000 veterans affected by the policy.

The emotional impact of the policy cannot be overstated. Many of those affected say that they were never informed that their pension would be frozen when they moved. Anne was not told, and the campaign reports that 86% of pensioners affected had no idea the policy even existed before they were impacted. That is too little, too late.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on this timely debate. He just referred to a 100-year-old. Does he agree that the frozen pension issue is not just about the fact that people are seeing a relatively small pension compared with the one they would have had if they were still a UK resident? Because of the policy, in their final years of existence on this earth, they will have a paltry pension to pass away on.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to some of that later. He is absolutely right that there is not just a severe financial impact, but a moral impact. Constituents of ours, who have paid their dues—and, in Anne’s case, more than paid their dues given what they have done for this country—will end their days on pretty much nothing when inflation is taken into account.

Last December, I challenged the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions on his decision not to meet Anne during her visit to the UK—a visit that required an 8,500 mile round trip, which is no mean feat at the age of 99. She was not offered a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Anne’s story is sadly emblematic of a much wider injustice that continues to be perpetrated on our elderly. Only this year, we saw continued poor treatment through policies such as the removal of the winter fuel payment and the betrayal of the WASPI women, both causes that were vociferously supported by the Labour party in opposition. Labour is happy to freeze pensioners and happy to freeze their pensions.

The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet Anne is symbolic of a Government who are, I regret to say, unwilling to listen to some of the most elderly and vulnerable among us. That brings me to the crux of today’s debate: the Government do not seem willing to engage in any meaningful way with the overseas electorate affected by the policy. I remind hon. Members that 158 parliamentarians from across the UK and Canada wrote to the Government last October calling for an end to the policy, and more than 140,000 people signed Anne’s petition to meet the Prime Minister in December.

The most concerning aspect of the Government’s current line of response is the estimated cost of ending the policy altogether. Based on calculations made annually, the Government quote the figure of £950 million a year to uprate and backdate all pensions, but that is not the ask. The End Frozen Pensions campaign has made it abundantly clear that it is not calling for retrospective compensation. It is asking simply to receive the same annual increases going forward that are awarded to pensioners living here, and in the USA, France and a host of other countries.

The cost of such a policy change is a mere £55 million a year—a fraction of the overall pensions budget. Will the Minister agree to meet the End Frozen Pensions campaign to accurately assess the cost of what is being requested by pensioners? Will he work with us, in good faith, to find a solution that reflects the modest and realistic nature of the appeal?

Beyond the severe individual hardships, there are important and growing geopolitical consequences to the point where the policy is now creating serious diplomatic tensions with some of our closest allies, as pensions are frozen in 50 out of the 56 Commonwealth nations. How can we speak proudly of our Commonwealth partnerships while refusing full pensions to veterans in the Falkland Islands, British-born nurses in Barbados or former civil servants in Canada? Those are countries with deep and historical ties to the UK, yet they are forced to subsidise our negligence.

Australia and Canada have made their frustrations clear. Canada has been formally requesting a resolution to the issue for more than 40 years. In October, 103 Canadian parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to address the issue. The Canadian and Australian Governments already provide full state pension increases to their citizens living in the UK. Meanwhile, they are left picking up the tab for British citizens residing in their countries.

With Canada and Australia having just held national elections, and with new trade discussions likely on the horizon, what assessment has the Minister made of the policy’s impact on our future ability to trade and meaningfully engage with those countries? Will he look at how reciprocal barriers to the policy may be overcome?

As I draw to a close, let me return to the heart of the matter. The policy causes financial hardship for a large number of affected elderly people. It also causes indignity and isolation; their repeated dismissal by the Government is leading to their political disenfranchisement. Putting an end to this blatant injustice is not only achievable but affordable—£55 million a year is not beyond our means. What is ultimately lacking is not money, but political will.

I have one practical ask of the Minister: will he meet campaigners to more fully understand their demands? If not to resolve the issue outright, will he at least commit to acknowledge the request for uprating on a going-forward basis only? Will he agree to work with me and campaigners to explore how, at a minimum, awareness of the policy might be improved, given the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy’s existence prior to moving overseas? All that those pensioners are asking for is a level playing field, so that those who have contributed can live out their retirement with dignity and security.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

We were campaigning against the increase in the state pension age, and we had all sorts of proposals in our 2019 manifesto. We lost that election, and the courts have since decided that the increase in the state pension age was legal, so this decision is not about that. All I would say to WASPI women in my constituency—I have no doubt that they will contact me—is that I believe this is the fair and right decision. We are committed to supporting the lives of 1950s-born women, but we do not believe that the ombudsman’s approach on injustice or remedy is the right way forward, which is why we have taken this decision.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Many, many WASPI women will be appalled by the Secretary of State’s statement. When they look at today’s proceedings, would they be right in concluding that this Government were prepared to resolve the pensions of mineworkers, but not those of WASPI women?

Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq; I always look forward to it. I commend the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for setting the scene so very well on a subject that is of great interest to all hon. Members present and to me personally. It is only fair to put on the record my thanks for her leadership of the APPG on eye health and visual impairment. In the time we have known each other, I have always supported her in these debates; she used to be on the Opposition side of the Chamber, but has now been elevated. We look forward to working strongly alongside her and others in the years ahead, if God spares us.

There are currently 57,500 people across Northern Ireland with sight loss, and the figure is expected to rise by over 25% by 2032. Today’s debate sets out the problem, but it also gives us an opportunity to think about what we can do to reduce that figure. Some 50% of sight loss is preventable, and it is that preventable 50% that I want to talk about.

The message must be clear that eye tests are as necessary as any other health check. I work very closely alongside the opticians in Newtownards in my constituency: they come to me regularly with their ideas, and I always convey those ideas to the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Secretary of State or Minister at Westminster. I cannot remember the technical term for it, but the opticians in Newtownards have the most up-to-date machinery for checking people’s eyes—it is phenomenal.

My question to the Minister, if he does not mind my asking it at the very beginning, is what has been done to ensure more opticians’ tests, even for people who may think that they do not need one. I do not want to make them mandatory, because that would be wrong, but they should be made more accessible and available.

I will give two examples of the importance of opticians’ tests. A gentleman I know quite well once came to see me. I said that he did not look very well—he was very pale—and he said, “Jim, I have an absolutely splitting headache.” I said, “Have you been to the doctor?” He said, “I have, and the doctor gave me some headache tablets.” I said, “Where are you going now?” He said, “I’m going to the opticians.” I said, “You go to the optician and tell him about your headache.” The optician took that man’s details and sent him directly from Newtownards up to Ulster hospital in Dundonald. He had a tumour the size of an apple in his head. Immediate surgery saved that man’s life.

Another person I know quite well had been having headaches and blurred vision for some time. She would come to see me about benefits, and I would say, “Look, I think you should go and see your optician.” She did, and fortunately she had a tumour removed. It saved her sight and saved her life.

What more can we do? We—when I say “we”, I mean the Government—can prevent eye loss. If the Government can get people to make appointments early, I believe we can see great things happening for the 50% of sight loss that is preventable. Back in June, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland launched two new guides to support adults with sensory disabilities in Northern Ireland. As always, I will give some examples that I hope are helpful for the Minister to take on board.

The new resources, known as care pathways, map out the care and treatment that users can expect from professionals and support organisations to help them to manage their conditions. I welcome the excellent initiative to make a pathway to care and a future free from red tape and obstructions. My goodness! I know that there is red tape to get through—we understand that—but sometimes it becomes so burdensome that people just turn off.

The guides were released in tandem with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and other charitable groups. The support provided for blind and partially sighted people by those in the charitable sector is phenomenal. They should be thanked for stepping up and filling the breach, as they so often do.

I read recently on the RNIB’s website that it has a scheme called “SkillSET RNIB (2023)”, a Northern Ireland-based pre-employment initiative that offers opportunities for people who are seeking to gain employment for the first time or who are unable to continue in their current job because of sight loss. The hon. Member for Battersea has described the problems she experiences in coming to work and how technology lets her down; schemes such as these, in tandem with the Government Department back home and with the RNIB, can come up with ideas to address those issues directly and helpfully. They can enable people to find work and can encourage them in everyday life.

I am also aware that the Department for Work and Pensions has the Access to Work scheme, which is operated through the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. Access to Work can contribute towards any supplementary employment costs that result from a disability. Sometimes we come and present cases, but there are things that Governments do, both back home at the Northern Ireland Assembly and here. I believe that the DWP’s Access to Work scheme is available for any paid job, part-time or full-time, permanent or temporary.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend talks about what needs to be done on pathways to work. Does he agree that potential employers need to understand two things? First, they could be in breach of the law if they engage in activities that prevent partially sighted or blind people from getting employment. Secondly, they could be overlooking better-qualified candidates for employment. Either way, they will lose unless they take account of this very worthwhile debate and of the need to ensure that they comply.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, my hon. Friend adds important evidence that takes the debate forward, and I thank him for it. Hopefully the Minister is listening as well.

Food Banks

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

This is an important debate, and I acknowledge the efforts made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). The number of attendees is a testament to the importance of the debate. I just wonder whether the Government have taken account of some of the concerns about the expansion and continuation of poverty.

Even with the increase in benefits in the past few years, it appears that there has been a massive increase in poverty, particularly among families with children, as the hon. Member alluded to. It is not just that children have insufficient food to eat, but that even when they do get food it is unhealthy, and we have seen childhood obesity levels increase as a result. A series of factors has to be addressed to deal with this problem.

I draw attention to the work of faith-based groups. None of them acts out of any selfish interest; they simply put the gospel message into practice by trying to reach communities that otherwise would not be reached. We should all give them our support and commend them, as we do other groups. We look to the Government to cut through and to lessen the dependency on and need for people to access food banks. I very much hope—but doubt—that we will get to the point at which there is no need whatever for any food banks, but we need to minimise the dependency on them and the need for them in communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Child Maintenance Service

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on his speech. I will comment not only from a Northern Ireland point of view, but from a personal point of view and on behalf of my constituents.

We brought in the Child Maintenance Service to ensure that when a parent—a mother or a father—leaves the family unit, the child is cared for. It is so important. We deal with these cases nearly every week in my office. Unfortunately, they are not always good to hear about, because the contribution—in most cases from the father, but in some cases from the mother—is not always up to scratch.

The Government give parents a small amount of money to help with childcare, but not many people can raise a child on less than £25 a week. Subsequently, it is incumbent on parents to do the bulk of the financial giving. For some parents, child tax credit helps to fill the gap, yet when there is a relationship breakdown, finances are inevitably strained. Instead of just one rent or one mortgage, there are now two. There are two sets of heating bills and two sets of electricity, yet the income has not doubled. I completely understand that it cannot all be done, but there can never, ever be an excuse for a parent not providing for their child.

The CMS was set up to facilitate things when a relationship breakdown means that an agreement cannot be reached. Its role is to ensure that help is there to work out how to pay the bills and provide for the children. That is the theory, and it is all great, but in practice I have parents coming to my office upset because their partner will not meet their obligations. I know of one who has holidays, nights out, a big car and a lavish lifestyle, and he is absolutely suntanned to the eyeballs—this is all detailed on social media! Everybody else seems to know what he is doing, but the CMS seems not to. I find that quite frustrating. What is he paying? He is paying £5 a week in maintenance. How can that be right? The computer will say that people are paying what they are able to pay, but the reality is that they have turned their back not only on their relationship, but on their child and on their obligation. Their life is so expensive. It hits you right between the eyes when you see that.

The most recent statistics that I have found, for Northern Ireland’s separate but very similar system, show that the compliance rate for paying parents on collect and pay remained relatively stable from September 2020 to September 2023. Between 75% and 83% of parents paid some child maintenance; in the quarter ending September 2023, compliance was at 79%. It is interesting that one in five parents are not paying towards their offspring, but to me the telling phrase is “some child maintenance”. That £5 a week example shows a real shortfall. How much is “some”? Is it £5 short? Is it £5 a week? It could mean the difference between a child who can afford to have swimming lessons in school and a child who has to sit on the sidelines and is made different from their peers because one parent has decided, “No, I’m not paying that.” That is absolutely unacceptable.

It is a difference that we need to know about. We cannot accept a reporting system that appears to say that any amount paid is a victory. Try explaining that victory to a struggling single parent whose mum is giving money out of her pension to keep the lights on! That is the reality for the CMS.

There is a mechanism by which those who are not paying can be taken to court. A 2018 review of the Northern Ireland child maintenance reform programme, commissioned by the Department for Communities, found that from the introduction of enforcement charges in 2014 to December 2016, £7,200 had been received in enforcement charges. I suggest that there needs to be a bit more action on that. On collect and pay, the review noted:

“Collection charges were introduced in August 2014. Up to December 2016, £432,100 have been received in collection charges from paying parents with £83,400 received from receiving parents.”

Part of the problem with parents pursuing CMS is that they speak to a different officer every time. How many times have we, as elected representatives, had to explain the whole case again to a different officer? If it is going to be one officer, that is okay, except for one thing—it does not work out either.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The point about case officers not being fully au fait with the issue is an extremely frustrating one that more and more parents are describing. They are experiencing delays on the phone, and then they have to start from scratch to explain their case from A to Z. It is extremely frustrating for all concerned.

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is, and that is one of the problems. The Minister is a very compassionate and understanding Minister, and hopefully he will come back with the answers that we all seek. I am very keen to hear his thoughts on how we can we ensure better continuity.

Reforms have been happening, thanks to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). Like other hon. Members, I want to thank her personally, because it was her determination and commitment that enabled the Department for Work and Pensions to impose tougher sanctions on non-paying parents such as forcing the sale of property and taking away passports and driving licences through a quick and simple administrative process. The Child Support (Enforcement) Act was designed to see families being paid faster, as it gives the DWP the power to use a liability order to reclaim unpaid child maintenance instead of applying to court and waiting for up to 20 weeks. My goodness me! How frustrating to wait that long for something to be done.

I want to keep to my six minutes, Sir Charles, so these will be my last few sentences. The reform is great, but more is needed. I look to the Minister to see what improvements can be made throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s thoughts on discussions between the DWP and Northern Ireland to ensure that in a bitter breakdown, the child is not the one ultimately paying the price. That is what this debate is about, and that is what we should try to achieve.

Musculoskeletal Conditions and Employment

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for bringing this very important subject to the House. This is a timely debate and, as she outlined in her speech, getting various parts of the population into work and getting people back into work are popular with the Government at the moment, but they are important on their own terms as well. She properly outlined the human cost that these conditions cause in her speech. Via the charity Versus Arthritis, which does so much good work in this field, one of my Gedling constituents commented on her condition:

“Living with arthritis changes you and turns your world upside down.”

I know that that will be the experience of many people.

Although the human cost is very important—and perhaps the most important factor—it is worth focusing on the economic cost, given that the focus of this debate is employment. It is also worth looking at some of the steps that the Government are taking to try to mitigate this. Conditions such as arthritis in the popular imagination are perhaps still thought of as being something that affects pensioners. That is the popular image, but we know, and we should know, that it is far more widespread than that. More than 10 million people in the UK—one in six of our constituents—have arthritis; that is one in six of our constituents with pain or fatigue and with restricted mobility. People with arthritis are 20% less likely to be in work than people without arthritis and 12% of sickness absence in the NHS between September 2021 and August 2022 was due to back problems and other MSK conditions, which illustrates how widespread this is.

I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for axial spondyloarthritis, but the charity that supports people in that space, the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, estimates that a patient aged 26, who has waited eight and a half years for an axial spondyloarthritis diagnosis is likely to lose around £187,000 in their life, the majority of which derives from a loss of productivity due to reduced employment. The average patient incurs costs of around £61,000 in out-of-pocket expenses while waiting for a diagnosis, including the cost of medication, travelling to appointments and private healthcare appointments such as visits to chiropractors. The scale of this issue is quite staggering. According to the Office for National Statistics, 23.3 million working days were lost in 2021 due to musculoskeletal conditions. The cost of working days lost due to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis was estimated at £2.58 billion in 2017, rising to £3.43 billion by 2030. There is a definite need to address this with some urgency.

In that light, I welcome the announcement in the last Budget of over £400 million in funding for employment support and resources within MSK and mental health services, with £100 million specifically to support people with MSK conditions. That funding includes tailored employment support within MSK and mental health services in England, including expanding the well-established and successful individual placement and support scheme and scaling up MSK hubs in the community. The experiences of people with arthritis and MSK conditions must be at the heart of that extension and the development of new services, to ensure that the Government create efficient resources that meet the needs of people with MSK conditions. I understand that the IPS scheme is already well established for people with mental health problems and they are usually referred to it from within the healthcare system. Having that support on offer and available to people with arthritis and MSK conditions could mean that they find suitable work that does not have a negative impact on their MSK health.

The Government have said that they will ensure digital resources such as apps for the management of mental health and MSK conditions are readily available so that more people can easily access the right support for them. I hope that that will include employment support. While the Budget leans towards a digital first approach, as everything does these days, I hope that the combination of apps and tailored employment support within a community will allow people to access support in a variety of ways and choose the method that suits them.

I also welcome the recent announcement that employment advisers will be introduced into MSK pathways to support people with MSK conditions back into work. People with arthritis and MSK conditions need equitable access to employment support programmes.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the issue of employment support, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that advisers and people in that position understand some of the lesser-known conditions? For example, I have had some experience of syringomyelia of the spinal cord. Knowledge and experience of such conditions at an early stage can help considerably to keep people in work or get them back into work if they have been off.

[Tom Randall]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to be smart. We can talk about MSK as an umbrella term, but within that there are lots of different conditions with different symptoms that affect people differently. That is where we need to be smart. Some people will have conditions that enable them to work on some days, while flare-ups on another day might prevent them from doing so. A one-size-fits-all approach is probably less likely to work. If we are serious about getting people back into work, which we should be, we need to be creative about that and try to recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, the broad range and spectrum of conditions and how they affect different people. That is a difficult task, but it is something we should certainly aim for.

Programmes such as Access to Work may not, on the surface, appear relevant to many people with arthritis who might not consider themselves to have a disability, but they need to have access to such programmes. Following the hon. Gentleman’s comments, the potential impact of arthritis and MSK conditions on people’s ability to work and their experiences of work can be misunderstood, particularly when the severity of conditions fluctuates unpredictably over time. I hope that, as he said, employment advisers are skilled and confident in supporting people with arthritis and MSK conditions, and that they receive the training they need to know how they affect people’s experiences of employment.

Perhaps the most important thing we need is a change of mindset. Over recent decades, we have revolutionised the way in which we approach wheelchair users and talk about mental health in the workplace: we are more positive about and accommodating of various things. We have been open, embraced that and made the necessary adaptations to bring people into the workplace, but we have not quite got there with musculoskeletal conditions, arthritis and other things. The Government and employers should create flexible workplaces so that people can participate in society. That change of mind—that forward thinking—will be good not only for society and the Exchequer but, most importantly, for the people involved. Instead of being at home in pain, they will be out in employment, which will be fulfilling and good for them. That is what we should be aiming for. It will perhaps be a long process, as it is about changing minds, but we should commit ourselves to it today.

Universal Credit Deductions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I think they do; he does not know them as well as I do. The letter states:

“As a food bank operating in Newtownards, we are writing to you to raise our concerns about rising numbers of people in our community who are needing to turn to food banks, like ours, because they cannot afford the essentials we all need to survive.”

These are his words: “This is not right”. I say amen to that.

“In the last financial year we saw a 30% increase in clients coming to the Newtownards Foodbank compared to the previous year. We are aware that our summer has started really busily with an average of 24 different families attending each week since June in what is normally our quieter spell.

Many attendees are struggling with the inability to feed there families and provide fuel for their house needs. A significant proportion are actually working but their outgoings outstrip their income. Those on benefits clearly don’t get enough to match their basic needs.

While the cost of living crisis and the pandemic have placed additional pressures on incomes, this year’s rise is part of a longer-term trend in levels of need. Support has eroded over decades and the basic rate (‘standard allowance’) of universal credit is now at its lowest ever level as a proportion of average earnings. Alarmingly, the number of parcels provided this year is more than double the amount distributed five years ago.”

I will say that again, because that is an important line:

“Alarmingly, the number of parcels provided this year is more than double the amount distributed five years ago.

No one should be forced to turn to a food bank because they cannot afford essentials, including food. We provide immediate support to people in our community when they are struggling the most, but our vision is for a world where food banks, like ours, don’t need to exist.”

I said that in an intervention on the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. That is his vision, mine, the vision of every Opposition Member and, I hope, of the Minister. The letter also says:

“Research by the Trussell Trust shows that inadequate social security is the main driver of food bank need and there is a known link between issues with the benefits system and food bank use. This can and must change.

Alongside the Trussell Trust, we are calling for our social security system to Guarantee Our Essentials by making sure that the basic rate of Universal Credit is at least enough to afford the essentials we all need, such as food, energy and basic household goods – and that deductions can never pull people below this level.”

He asks me:

“Will you support the principle that, at a minimum, Universal Credit should always protect people from going without the essentials?”

That is Richard’s letter to me this week. I will say on the record that I fully support what he said.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend has succinctly summed up the issues in the letter from his constituent. Does he agree that faith-based food bank providers in my constituency, his and others are doing excellent work, and that most people in society, including universal credit recipients, support the principle of the universal credit system, which is to encourage people back into work? The problem is that when there are deductions, and almost a penalistic regime, people suffer. That problem must be solved in our society, because people are being driven further into poverty, rather than lifted out of it.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend has succinctly made his case in his intervention. The key issue for the Minister—this is from me, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, who set the scene very well, and, I suspect, everybody on the Opposition Benches—is that there is a delay in the system, and difficulty understanding the system. Whenever we go to the local office, the office manager and staff can respond, but there are many people other than those who come to us—and there are many who come to us, by the way; many come to the office with this issue, because they still cannot understand it. We are asking the Minister for the extra help that is quite clearly needed. There is also the five to six weeks’ delay that many people seem to have. Whenever they earn more money, they fall back down again. They are often sick, and their housing benefit is so complicated; it is almost hard to try to comprehend it.