Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The right hon. Member brings me to my next point, which is the risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale, given the sheer volume of accounts that will be scanned. That is glaringly obvious. These new powers also strip those who receive state support of that fundamental principle of British law, the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said earlier.

Amendment 11 would ensure that the Government can tackle fraudsters, but would limit the use of an eligibility verification notice to cases where a welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing and not merely of error. That proportionate and necessary safeguard would prevent the corruption of our welfare system, which will turn it from a safety net—meant to offer dignity and support to those in need—into a punitive system, where accessing help comes at the cost of someone’s privacy and civil liberties.

The Bill grants the Department draconian powers to apply to a court to have people stripped of their driving licence if they have an outstanding debt, whether for overpayment, fraud or error. Amendments 10 and 12 would remove that power from the Bill. There are fairer and more effective ways to enforce the law. Analysis of the Bill has shown that where assessment deems that a financial deduction would cause hardship, the debtor can face losing their licence. That is not justice in my view, but a penalty for being poor.

I have heard the claims that this measure will be a last resort when the debtor has failed to engage over a period, but that overlooks the fact that non-engagement can be a symptom of hardship rather than wrongdoing. Many welfare recipients, including those with mental health conditions and caring responsibilities, find it difficult to navigate the complex bureaucracy of our social security system, and may be unfairly deemed not to have engaged with the DWP.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is important and necessary to have better legislation to look after people. I doubt that anyone in the Chamber has not been confronted by a constituent who has made an inadvertent mistake. Given the complexity of the paperwork and the reams of questions, it is beyond the ability of most people to respond. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, and that of many others, that if the system continues to be so complicated, it will inadvertently drive people into a position for which they are not responsible?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree. I think that the complexity of our system lends itself to errors on the part of individuals who find it extremely difficult to navigate. In Committee, several witnesses explained that people avoid repayment for a variety of reasons, including not knowing where to get help, simply being overwhelmed by the whole process, or facing multiple debts. I hope that the Minister will provide further reassurance on that specific point relating to amendments 10 and 12.

All these challenges will only be made worse if the Government proceed with the planned cuts in disability benefits outlined in the recent Green Paper, which will affect more than 3 million families. The last Government stripped our welfare state to the bone during 14 years of deep cuts—disabled people are already far more likely to be in destitution and to rely on food banks—but spying on millions of people or piling cuts on to a failed system will not repair our welfare model. The Government must pause for thought, meet representatives of disability organisations, and build a fairer system with their consent and confidence. Our welfare state needs to provide support for those who need it, and the change that we promised as a Government must lead to a more compassionate and caring society—one that enables rather than penalises. These are the values that make us different from the last Government, and we should not forget that.

Pension Funds

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is unfair and we need to ensure that HSBC is accountable.

In correspondence with MPs, the bank states that because clawback is lawful, its policy is acceptable, but I say: lawful does not mean just. This Parliament has a duty to act when the law permits injustice. We need to modernise pension legislation to ensure that it reflects today’s values of fairness, transparency and equality. After the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—pension injustice, we must be alert to further pension scandals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. The fact that there are so many hon. Members in the Chamber is an indication of the interest that she has created through her Adjournment debate, so well done to her. There were an estimated 12.95 million state pensioners in Great Britain in 2024-25. As the hon. Lady has said, the WASPI women have been hard done by because of Government decisions made without consideration. There is an onus on all of us in this House to ensure that pension funds are profitable and sustainable. Does the hon. Lady agree that in tandem with enforcing work-based pensions, we must ensure that state pensions can catch up, so that there will still be such a thing as state pensions for the 40-year-olds who are paying their national insurance today, believing that their state pension will be there for them when it comes to the time that they need it?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue. Absolutely, we need to ensure that the Government have a long-term outlook, so that the young working British people of today will be able to retire on a comfortable pension.

We urgently need a full review of pension clawback practices. Many constituents have written to me about other unfair pension schemes, including former police officers and people on occupational pensions that are not protected from inflation.

Statutory Sick Pay

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

Successive Governments have grappled with statutory sick pay, with report after report saying that we need fundamental, root-and-branch change to a system that is letting workers down every day. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to tackle this important issue head-on, with many actively avoiding or dodging it.

I am therefore glad that, within their first 100 days, this Labour Government delivered on our pledges and introduced a transformative, once-in-a-generation Employment Rights Bill to drag workers’ rights into the 21st century. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is largely responsible for the Bill, is not here today, I put on record my thanks to him. In a previous role, I had the pleasure of working alongside him in developing much of the policy outlined in the Bill, which will mean that workers’ rights in our country are fit for purpose.

The Bill makes welcome changes to statutory sick pay. In 2022, a Trades Union Congress survey found that 80% of those earning more than £50,000 a year receive their full pay when sick, compared with only a third of those earning under £15,000. Around half of all employees in the UK get their full pay, just under a third get statutory sick pay, and one in 10 gets nothing at all. Most low-paid employees—around 8 million—are in the middle group, reliant on statutory sick pay.

For those workers, the measures in the Employment Rights Bill are much welcome: removing the three-day waiting period so that workers are eligible for sick pay from day one; removing the lower earnings limit and extending sick pay eligibility to 1.3 million of the lowest-paid workers currently denied it due to the lower earnings limit of £123; and setting the 80% earnings replacement rate. However, as the TUC, the safe sick pay campaign and many others have said, we must not stop here. We must continue to be ambitious in strengthening workers’ rights.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this critical issue. In my constituency and probably his, many small and medium-sized businesses are struggling—let us be honest—with the rise in national insurance contributions. Does he agree that, building on Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, the Minister and the Government might need to step in to ensure that such businesses, which are facing rising national insurance contributions, can still deliver statutory sick pay for their small group of employees?

[Imran Hussain]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes an important point that I will address more substantially later in my speech. He will also understand that having a healthier workforce and limiting presenteeism would massively increase the productivity of those small and medium-sized businesses in the long run. One of the huge issues we currently face is that people who are too sick to work are being forced to do so, because of the lack of support. That is not good for them or for businesses.

Green Book Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Green Book review.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank all hon. Members who have come today to talk about the Green Book. Our constituents all know that something is very clearly not right and has not been right for a very, very long time. They pay their taxes but they cannot see things getting any better. In Congleton, I cannot see any evidence of any significant infrastructure spending for many years, except for where it has been facilitated through house growth. Government money does not appear to have been involved in significant ways for a long time.

The previous Government talked a good game about levelling up the north, but actual investment never followed, which is why my constituents voted for change. In my area, I want to see the Middlewich bypass, the A50/A500 north midlands manufacturing corridor, massive investment in improving our electricity grid, and all kinds of other changes and improvements, but I can see very clearly that something is not right.

Total capital public spending per person in the north-west in 2022-23 was £13,297 per year; in London, it was £14,842. Something is being done to allocate money in that way. The Green Book is the guidance issued by His Majesty’s Treasury on how to appraise policies, programmes and projects. The five-case model is the required framework for considering the use of public resources. They must be used proportionately to the costs and risks involved, taking account of the context in which a decision is taken.

The five-case model involves a strategic dimension—what the case for change is, including the rationale for the intervention, the current situation, what is to be done and so forth. There is an economic dimension and a commercial dimension: can a realistic and credible commercial deal be struck, and who will manage which risks? There is a financial dimension and a management dimension—are there realistic and robust delivery demands, and can the proposal be delivered?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady led the charge in the 9.30 am debate, and she is doing the same at 4.30 pm—well done for both. I just want to back her up. Does she agree that the Green Book review has to have a view to each area of the United Kingdom, and must not simply point all roads to London and the south-east? We are all aware that, in other areas, UK policies and procedures that work well in London do not translate to rural local authorities, so we need a review of that. Is the hon. Lady saying exactly that?

[Mrs Russell]

I certainly agree.

We are pleased that the Treasury has initiated a review into the Green Book and we believe it is an opportunity to once and for all address a range of key issues that have undermined successive Governments’ attempts to rebalance our regional economies. We must grasp this opportunity. We believe that the review must be done with ambition and a willingness to challenge underlying customs and practices. In particular, it needs to learn from the successes and failures—largely failures, I would say—of previous Green Book reviews, in particular the 2020 review.

The review recommended that the locational effects be understood via place-based analysis, with the benefits of any intervention valued specifically for the area, hence enabling any transformational impacts to be properly recognised. But once again, those recommendations do not appear to be generally reflected in practice, particularly in the application of Department-level appraisal guidance. It is vital that the current review addresses that. I believe that considering options in the context of place and properly valuing the transformational impacts of interventions is crucial if we are to realise the potential of the north-west and all our regions.

We need to simplify and speed up our Green Book processes. The guidance is enormously long and incredibly complex. It has multiple supplementary documents adding up to thousands and thousands of pages. Its changes, subtleties and intent get lost within the complexity, and practice remains unchanged. That very complexity leads to a desire for a metric that cuts through, and that probably explains why the business case thresholds remain so dominant. That is probably how the weighting towards expenditure in London and the south-east continues to predominate.

There is a consultancy industry around the Green Book, and that raises the cost of developing a successful business case. It also makes it very difficult for smaller local authorities to successfully put together a business case because the complexity of doing so is absolutely mind boggling. Frankly, the whole thing is just a bunch of piffle—we need to make this very simple and outcomes driven. We need to really slim it down and for it to be in a format that our local and devolved mayoral authorities, as we acquire one in Cheshire and Warrington, will be able to actually use in a practical way.

We need a stronger focus on place. We need to really look properly at where money has been spent historically and where we therefore need investment. We need to weight that specifically towards areas that have not received investment so that we can redress the imbalance in which transport spending in London vastly outweighs that in the rest of the country.

When I moved to the north of England, I was so shocked when I first used the railway network; I was in my 20s and the Pacer trains were still being used. Those trains were fashioned out of bus chassis and carried on being used for 37 years. They were given a maximum lifespan of 20 years; they were supposed to be a very basic short-term thing to start with, and the level of shoddiness was just astonishing. That is what we are always given in the north-west. We are given the cast-offs, and then we are expected to make do, and then what we are expected to make do with is expected to continue way beyond its intended lifespan. That has been going on now for as long as anyone can remember, and our economy then reflects that very sad point.

I know the Labour Government are focused on improving the situation. I would really like us to work extensively together on that. I know that the Green Book review will be carried out at pace, and that the Government have announced these plans. That cost-benefit analysis needs to be fundamentally changed so that we can shift capital expenditure out to our regions at pace. By that, I do not mean demanding, as the last Government did, that local areas produce a shovel-ready project at the drop of a hat, so that they could rush spending through and make it look as if they were doing something for the north of England. I mean a fully considered set of proposals that enable regions to be fully developed through our devolved mayoral authorities, which I think are going to be a spectacular improvement for many areas of the north, and that will enable us to have proper economic development in the north of England.

Alistair Darling said:

“it isn’t just about pots of money or building the odd rail or extending a road. It’s about quality of life. It’s about making places that people want to go and live in, where they feel confident, they can live there, their children can grow up there, there’s opportunities there, and they don’t have to go somewhere else to get on, as it were. None of this is beyond us. Most other countries do it, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t either.”

That was quite some time ago, but it applies more than ever now.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in paying tribute to organisations such as JobSmart in his constituency. When the previous Labour Government introduced the new deal for disabled people in 1998—I was the Minister then, as I am now—the disability employment gap started to fall, and it fell steadily all the way until 2010, when it stopped falling. I want to get us back to that positive downward trajectory.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable man. I have known him a long time, and I know that he tries to be compassionate and helpful, but I have deep concerns about this. It would appear that the books are to be balanced on the backs of the vulnerable. I have a genuine concern that the outworking of the spring statement may push some people with severe mental health problems over the edge. How will the Government put in place greater support for those who have to battle their recognised illnesses and live—not just survive—in this pressure-filled world? That will be even harder after these changes are implemented.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the start of his question. Our proposals fully protect the personal independence payments of those with the most severe impairments. I think those are the people that he is concerned about, and they are fully protected under these plans.

Seriously Ill Children: Financial Support for Parents

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered financial support for parents caring for seriously ill children.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I begin by paying tribute to my constituents Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who are in the Public Gallery today. Their tireless advocacy, following the tragic loss of their six-year-old son Hugh to cancer in 2021, is an inspiration to me, and I know this feeling is shared by colleagues across the House.

Ceri, Frances and the charity they set up, It’s Never You, have highlighted the immense challenges faced by families caring for seriously ill children. When a child is born, there is a support system in place for parents. Maternity pay provides a safety net for those who must stop work to care for their child, and the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 covers the parents of babies who are admitted to neonatal care within 28 days of birth. However, if a child falls seriously ill outside those periods, parents must navigate burdensome and insufficient systems that were not designed for families facing what is, for most, the very hardest time of their lives.

Ceri and Frances experienced this unfairness at first hand during the 100-mile round trips they had to make to be with Hugh during his treatment. Thankfully, they were financially stable, but they witnessed the harsh reality of our benefits system as they saw other parents being forced to sell their homes and give up work to care for their seriously ill children. Of course, these issues are compounded by the cost of living pressures that all families face, even without family emergencies piling on.

Approximately 68% of women and 57% of men with mental health problems are parents, which highlights the emotional strain that families across the country already face. Last year, a quarter of parents with children aged 18 and under said they struggled to provide sufficient food for their children, and Shelter estimates that 1.7 million private renters do not have enough savings to pay their rent if they were to become unemployed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I spoke to him beforehand. Charities such as the Family Fund provide a wide range of grants to families in Northern Ireland who are raising a disabled or seriously ill child or young adult on a low income, to spend on kitchen appliances—a fridge, a cooker or a washing machine—or clothing, bedding, sensory or play equipment, technology or just a much-needed family break.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact such charities are stepping in no way abdicates the Government’s responsibility to do more to help families when they need help? He is speaking about compassion. Compassionate action is what we need.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I agree that we should commend such charities. The hon. Gentleman shows moral clarity in rightly saying that the Government have an obligation to support families going through this incredibly difficult time.

Research shows that all the factors I have described mean that families are on a difficult footing even before facing the additional pressures of caring for a seriously ill child. When families need extra support during such challenging times, they are often met with bureaucratic hurdles that only add to their mental and financial stress. To access disability living allowance, parents face a 90-day waiting period, a daunting 40-page application form and long waits for responses. Universal credit and shared parental leave are unsuitable options for too many parents in this situation, as the rigid eligibility criteria mean that many parents of seriously ill children simply do not qualify.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate, commend his consistent advocacy on this topic, and welcome the thoughtful and passionate speech he has made this afternoon.

I have now met my hon. Friend twice, and his constituents Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who founded It’s Never You—which I think is also what they said when they received their son’s diagnosis. I thank them for telling me what had happened and telling me frankly about the journey they went through with their son Hugh, who was in hospital with a very serious illness. Their heartfelt reflections and the Hugh’s law campaign help people like me to understand and appreciate much better the emotional and financial impacts that parents experience at an extremely difficult time. I commend the outstanding work that that charity and others do to support the parents and families of children with cancer and other very serious health conditions.

Many parents caring for children and young people with serious illnesses are likely to need additional support through social security. Caring naturally has an impact on work and therefore, very likely, on household income. Financial support is available through universal credit, and if needed support can be available on day one through a universal credit advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts—the child element, the disabled child addition, the carer element and housing costs—are added as appropriate. Of course, universal credit is means-tested, and I recognise that it will not help households with greater financial resources, but it is there as a safety net if those financial circumstances change.

In the tragic circumstances of a child dying, the universal credit bereavement run-on is in place. It is designed to ensure financial stability for the initial period following the bereavement, and it can last for up to three months. Universal credit elements—the child element, the disabled child addition, the carer element and housing costs—will all remain in payment for the assessment period in which the child died and two further assessment periods beyond that. To support parents at this very difficult time, benefit conditionality is switched off for six months, which ensures that bereaved parents do not have to work or search for work during that period. After three months, a work coach will be in touch to offer additional voluntary support, which may or may not be taken up.

There is also disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and personal independence payments for those over 16. They are available if a child or young person’s condition or illness is of a long-term nature and gives rise to care, daily living or mobility needs. They are not means-tested. We are currently consulting, following last week’s Green Paper on pathways to work, on raising the age at which young people move from DLA on to PIP, the adult disability benefit, from 16 to 18. That proposal has been quite widely welcomed since we published the Green Paper.

Comparing January to February 2020, just before the pandemic, with September to October 2024, the number applying for DLA for children has increased by 193%—it has nearly tripled in that period. As a result, I am afraid the average journey time for DLA claims has risen; it is up now to about 20 weeks. I very much regret those delays and the Department is working to reduce them. We have increased the number of staff dealing with applications; they are clearing cases in date order, to be fair to everybody.

These benefits are a contribution to the extra costs that may arise as a result of a disability or health impairment. They are assessed on the needs arising, not on the condition itself, so they are available irrespective of the diagnosis. The highest level of benefit is over £9,500 per year. The benefit is generally paid to the child’s parent or guardian, so it can help with overall family finances and be used as the family choose to meet their needs. Many children and young people with serious illnesses may spend a lot of time in hospital. For those under 18, DLA and PIP continue to be paid in full, which is a difference from the adult benefit.

I will now address the three-month qualifying period—which my hon. Friend rightly referred to in his remarks—that applies to disability benefits such as DLA and PIP. Payment begins once the three-month period has been completed, which helps to establish that the disability and resulting care and support needs are of a long-standing nature and provides a division between short and long-term disability. Claims can be submitted during the three-month qualifying period. Consideration will always be given to whether the qualifying period has already been served, at least in part, before the date of claim.

I want to highlight this point: the three-month qualifying period begins when the care needs began, and we depend on the parents to tell us when that was. It could well be a week or a significant period before the diagnosis or the hospital admission, and before the benefit application was submitted. It is important to look at when the care needs began, because that could have been well before the application was made. If the child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, as my hon. Friend knows, special rules apply: claims are fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component or the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component will be paid from the date of the claim.

My officials are currently exploring the legal implications of another measure that has been proposed, which would introduce a run-on for child DLA and extend disability living allowance for a period after the death of a child. They will report on their conclusions once they have reached them. Receiving DLA and PIP can passport to a range of additional support, such as premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap, providing further help for families.

Help from social security is part of a wider commitment on the part of the Government. For children and young people who have cancer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has relaunched the children and young people cancer taskforce, which is focused on identifying tangible improvements for that particular patient group. I commend the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who co-chairs that taskforce and will spearhead its work on patient experience alongside her co-chair, Professor Darren Hargrave of University College London and Great Ormond Street hospital.

The taskforce will examine a wide range of issues across both clinical and non-clinical care, early diagnosis, genomic testing and treatment, research, innovation and, importantly, patient experience, looking at issues such as travel, food and psychological support. Ceri and Frances will be in a position to say a good deal about that, drawing on their own experiences in hospital with their son.

The cost of travel can be a real problem for families of children with serious illnesses. The healthcare travel costs scheme provides financial assistance to patients in England who do not themselves have a medical need for transport, but need help with the costs of travelling to NHS services. The Government recognise that some patients and their families who one might think should benefit from that scheme are in fact unable to do so as it is currently configured. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at that issue and whether more should be done, alongside its wider work on cancer.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) and I have just been talking about something that we all feel is very important. When a child is experiencing terrible bad health—bad health that, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire said, could lead to their death—the pressure on the parents and immediate family is enormous. All they want to do is be with their child and love their child all the time. They need someone there to help—“Here are the forms you need to fill out; here is the help we can give you”—to take the pressure off so that they can focus entirely on their child. That is the issue.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the pressures on the family in those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire referred to the fact that from April this year, the Department for Business and Trade is introducing a new entitlement of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for those with babies in neonatal care, to make sure that parents have appropriate support during that time—for exactly the reason the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just set out. That new entitlement was introduced under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which started as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament and received cross-party support. When opening this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire said that he will speak to Ministers in that Department about some ideas along those lines.

It is important that all parents of children with serious illnesses are supported to return to or remain in work, if that is what they choose to do. Carers for seriously ill children are already protected from employment discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and parents are entitled to up to 18 weeks’ unpaid parental leave to look after their children for any reason.

The Government’s new Employment Rights Bill will make it easier to access that entitlement, and will make the leave available from day one of starting a new job. It will also make it more likely that flexible working requests will be accepted by employers. To support existing, new and potential unpaid carers to make informed decisions about combining work and care, the Job Help website provides advice and information all in one place, and our new deal for working people will provide further support and help.

This debate has reminded us all that having a child who is seriously ill is surely one of the most worrying and stressful situations a parent can experience. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire for the initiative, which has given us the opportunity to talk about that today. There are no current plans to introduce a day one, non-means-tested grant for parents in this situation, like that proposed in the Hugh’s law campaign and supported in this debate, but I underline that there is already significant support offered by my Department. That is just part of the very important work across Government to improve support for parents in these circumstances, including, in particular, the relaunched children and young people cancer taskforce.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. It is an important and sensitive subject, and I commend him for pursuing it so energetically, the cause having been raised with him so effectively by his constituents. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, and I have no doubt at all that we will return to this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

British Sign Language Week

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on setting the scene so well. She spoke excellently yesterday in the Down’s syndrome debate and her speech today was a tour de force.

[Perran Moon]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could try to talk a little slower, because the interpreters might be struggling a little bit.

[Jim Shannon]

Kate Hoey, formerly the hon. Member for Vauxhall, said, “Whenever Jim Shannon speaks, he gets more words to the minute that any other MP”, so the hon. Member is absolutely right to tell me to slow it down. I will do my best to slow down a wee bit, if that is possible.

The speech made by the hon. Member for Thurrock was a tour de force. It is clear to all of us here that her heart shines brightly, and we thank her for telling her story. I congratulate all the other hon. Members who have had the ability to learn sign language.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) referred to one of his staff members; I say to her, keep a tight rein on him! I say that in jest, of course, because we all recognise how hard the hon. Member works.

In Northern Ireland, we have two sign languages. It is part of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language, because we have two different traditions, and the people of those traditions have the same difficulties when it comes to sign language. Those who want to have British Sign Language can have that and those who want Irish Sign Language can have that as well. In March 2004, the Secretary of State announced the formal recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language as languages in their own right, following similar recognition of BSL in Great Britain.

Some of my staff are very assiduous. I am only as good as my staff—I say that honestly because it is true. When some constituents came into the office who were challenged and had deaf issues, my staff decided that—even though those constituents came into the office with their parents—they would learn some sign language in order to communicate with them. My staff wanted not only to understand what my constituents wanted but to engage socially with them. I think it was the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth who said that when people cannot hear anything, they do not know what is happening around them. My staff felt that it was important to do that small thing. It shows that sometimes we have to do things outside of our own systems.

British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language in Northern Ireland have their own grammar and syntax systems, rather than being visual reflections of other languages. I believe we have a good system in Northern Ireland.

I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in his place. I do not think I have yet been in a debate where he has been responding. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, and to the speeches of the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones).

British Sign Language is the first, or preferred, language of communication for approximately 3,500 members of the deaf population of Northern Ireland, and approximately 1,500 use Irish Sign Language. Schools have incorporated some basic sign language, and I am glad they have—it is another way of doing it.

We have many churches who engage in this. It is no secret that I am a Christian, and I like to understand that we are moving with society. There can be language issues for children at church whenever we are preaching the gospel, preaching the word of God, reading the Bible or praying, so we should have sign language in the church.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has launched a brilliant new sign language video relay service for deaf people. There is access to the facility—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the SignVideo app or via a call button on the PSNI website. I say to the Minister: if the PSNI has done that in Northern Ireland, perhaps we need to do that here.

I have one last point. Fury from “Gladiators” is deaf, but look at what that lady has done. There is not one man in this Chamber who would take her on, never mind any other lady—I know I wouldn’t, anyway. I will finish by saying this: if Fury can do it, you can do it as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I would be very glad to meet representatives of the devolved Governments, and to co-operate with them on this, as we do in many other areas.

[Jim Shannon]

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has a 24/7 video system, so that those who have hearing problems can contact them and somebody can come out immediately. Is that something that the Minister could push forward with police forces on the mainland?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I welcome that innovative arrangement; if the hon. Member drops me a line about it, I would be interested to look at it further. That is a similar example to what we heard about some energy companies operating for their customers, and I welcome it.

Another main focus for the advisory board this year is the use of artificial intelligence to reduce barriers. How long will it be before we have a handheld device that will be able to interpret BSL both ways? What might be the pitfalls of that happening? Yesterday I chaired an interesting roundtable at Tata in Bishopsgate, attended by the co-chairs and members of the BSL Advisory Board, representatives of the British Deaf Association, the RNID, Professor Richard Bowden from the University of Surrey, and Professor Kearsy Cormier, professor of sign linguistics at University College London.

At the roundtable Dr Charudatta Jadhav, the principal scientist and head of the accessibility centre of excellence at Tata in India, told us that, while Tata is focusing initially on Indian and American Sign Language, it expects to have a BSL interpretation product within five years. We discussed the ethical and cultural issues around that: how can software interpret the nuances in facial expressions, which I believe are much more important in BSL than in Indian Sign Language? How do developers decide which version of BSL to implement? How will regional accents, which can provide a BSL user with valuable information about the signer, be handled? Those are interesting topics, and as Members have said, deaf people need to be in driving seat in resolving them.

Tech can certainly help deaf people to overcome barriers that too often and needlessly block opportunities that others take for granted. We want more of that potential to be realised. The Government have taken important steps around equal pay and flexible working. On Tuesday, we launched our 12-week consultation on mandatory disability pay gap reporting—including, I am pleased to say, a BSL version of the consultation document. We want deaf people to get the support they need to thrive in the workplace, and we recognise that too many do not at the moment.

Implementing the BSL Act is only just beginning. Let us all keep working together to deliver the access and inclusion for deaf people that all of us want to see. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and to everyone who has contributed to this important and welcome debate. I am grateful to those in the Public Gallery for their interest. I express particular thanks to the interpreters who have supported us today, and I thank Mr Speaker for enabling them to be with us.

Welfare Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues. Her constituents will not only benefit from the £1 billion investment into employment support, but the first ever above-inflation permanent increase in universal credit, if people are on universal credit and PIP. We have already taken action to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take a bigger burden, including our action on the non-dom tax status and a tax on the profits of utility companies. That principle of fairness is vital to us all.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I go on the tube twice a week, and the disability seat in the carriage says “Not every disability is visible”. Bearing that in mind, those with severe mental health issues, such as paranoid psychosis, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, already fear phone calls from withheld phone numbers. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that they will not be impacted or hounded in the attempt to root out fraudsters? Does she accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness, or be able to explain it or grasp it? How will these people—my people; our people—be protected?

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her powerful opening remarks.

According to the latest figures, there are 7,160 women in Scarborough and Whitby affected by the various Acts that made changes to women’s state pension age. As a candidate standing in Scarborough and Whitby, I pledged to support WASPI women, and as an MP, I rise today to speak for them. I sympathise with their anger and frustration. In her statement to the House in December, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that most women knew that their state pension age was increasing. That may well have been the case—I have no way of telling—but I have been contacted by so many constituents who have told me that they were not aware of the changes to their state pension age, and the reasons are ones that I think we can all understand.

My constituent Kirsty was living in Spain when the letters were sent from the DWP, so was totally unaware of the pension age increase. Another of my constituents told me that she only heard about the changes through a friend while looking after her dad, who was suffering from dementia.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the whole House is probably aware, Women Against State Pension Inequality has received 7,607 requests and raised £132,000 for the judicial review. There are 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, and 6,000 in my constituency, who want justice. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be in the best interests of the Government and the Minister to meet those women to finally negotiate a satisfactory outcome, avoid the costs of a judicial review, and ensure that justice can be given to the WASPI women, who richly deserve it?

[Alison Hume]

As always, the hon. Member makes a powerful point for his constituents, and I support his wider call for the Government to think again.

Returning to my constituent who was looking after her father who suffered from dementia, had she been aware of the changes she would have increased her personal pension contribution and saved more money to enable her to retire sooner to look after her dad, who has since passed away. The carer’s allowance was simply not enough to live on and pay for food and other essential bills. Her experience caring for an elderly parent is very common among women in their 50s and 60s; I have been there myself. It is extremely likely that many other women in that situation will have been preoccupied with coping with the day-to-day challenges that carers face and will not have known about the change to their state pension age.

Another constituent of mine had to sell her home of 36 years after she lost her husband, as she had planned for the future under the impression that she would receive her state pension at 60. Obviously, she acknowledges that even without the changes there is no guarantee that she could have remained in her home, but all the calculations that she and her husband did indicated that she would be all right. Many others had to work longer than they had anticipated or dip into their life savings and change their retirement plans after years of working hard and looking forward to life beyond work.

I acknowledge the action that the Government are taking to tackle the long-standing problems with carer’s allowance, which previous Governments failed to address. The increase in the state pension this April will make a tangible difference to the lives of many women in Scarborough and Whitby. I also acknowledge that the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for compensation, and left behind a black hole in the public finances, which I appreciate constrains the ability of this Government to offer compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my Wiltshire near-neighbour, for her powerful speech representing the many thousands of people who supported the petition.

I pay tribute to our visitors in the Public Gallery, many of whom I detect might qualify as WASPI women. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) about the power of this campaign, which demonstrates what people power can do to get the attention of Parliament. I hope they feel that this debate has advanced their cause—we will hear from the Minister shortly about whether that has happened.

I also pay tribute to hon. Members across the Chamber for their speeches. I agree with those of them who pointed out the cross-party nature of our efforts. It has been very powerful to see, in particular, the friendship between the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which is a moving sight. They are the conscience and soul of their respective parties, and I hope that the Minister will listen to his hon. Friend just as I listen to my right hon. Friend.

I recognise that the question is a complex one and the Government have had a difficult time in thinking about what to do. It is true, as the ombudsman’s report pointed out, that there was no direct loss of income to women from the maladministration. However, it is also true that the bad communication of the policy change led directly to people’s income being impacted negatively and to their making decisions in the absence of full information from Government about their future income, as many hon. Members have powerfully expressed on behalf of individual constituents.

It is also true that the question of how to communicate with individual members of the public is a fraught one, but it is simply not credible to say that the communications with this group were adequate. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) powerfully pointed out, if the Government also say that there is very little point in sending letters because people do not open them, then what is the point in the Government communicating with the public in that way on any topic?

It is also true—this is the final defence of the Government, as it were—that dealing with 3.5 million people, all of whom have difference circumstances, is a complex matter. I recognise how difficult that is, and how enormous the potential bill for the taxpayer could have been if every single one of those women received the maximum compensation.

I have said that this issue is very complicated, but it is also fundamentally very simple. Other hon. Members have made this point more powerfully than I can, but the fact is that Labour MPs campaigned to fix this problem, right the wrongs that had been done to the WASPI women and, if they won the election, see justice done. That has not happened. As hon. Members have said very powerfully, our democracy depends on us MPs fulfilling the promises that we make when we stand for election. If we do not do that, we will have a bigger problem than the injustice done to the WASPI women; indeed, our whole democracy will be in crisis.

I recognise that more could have been done by the last Conservative Government before the election. However, we were waiting for the ombudsman’s report and the suggestion that we kicked it into the long grass is a little unfair. The fact is that the ombudsman’s report arrived a matter of weeks before the general election was called. I am confident—my party made clear pledges to this effect—that we would have fulfilled our commitment to the WASPI women in light of the ombudsman’s report. Exactly what we would have done, I cannot say. Sadly, no one will ever know because the public took a different view about who should take the matter forward. Nevertheless, I can say with absolute candour and confidence that we would have done more than nothing, which is what the Labour Government have done.

Leaving party politics out of it, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who said that this is a matter for Parliament. The report came from a parliamentary ombudsman and it is Parliament that decides on these matters. Like her, I take hope in the many excellent, powerful and brave speeches made by Labour Members here in Westminster Hall today, and by many other Members who have stood in public and pledged their opposition to the decision made by their own party leadership. I honour them for the commitment they are making to honour the pledges they made when they stood as candidates, and I very much hope that the Minister is listening to them.

[Jim Shannon]

I have been a Back Bencher all my parliamentary career; I have no wish to be anything other than a Back Bencher. I am very happy in the role that I play. The Government Back Benchers in Westminster Hall today are playing an absolutely magnificent role; they should be congratulated and they should be very proud of the stance they are taking. Every one of them has spoken in support of the WASPI women and we thank them for that—and more Members than those Back Benchers are committed to doing the same. I look to the Minister here today. I have seen him nodding in support of them; his head went up and down, so I think he was agreeing with what they were saying. If that is the case, does he agree that he can only do one thing—meet the WASPI women before the judicial review makes him do something that he may end up deciding he should have done long ago?

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is without a doubt the greatest Back Bencher in the House of Commons, and I very much agree with what he is saying. I reiterate my appreciation of and respect for colleagues across the House and particularly those Labour Members who have spoken today and in other places in support of the WASPI women.

Let me finish by putting a specific question to the Minister. When we were here in Westminster Hall a couple of months ago to debate this issue, it was his first day in the job. By the way, we should not be blaming him for coming up with this policy; he was a Back Bencher when it was conceived and he just had to come out and defend it, which he did. On that day, during the last debate on this topic, he said:

“We will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 157WH.]

I would be grateful if he told us what progress has been made on this matter and what action plan we can expect. What update can he provide? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just said, I very much hope that he will work closely with the WASPI women themselves and their representatives to develop that action plan.

This battle is not over; as we have just heard, there is a case in the High Court about it. However, Parliament remains powerful enough, and has the authority and the ability, to right the injustice that has been done over so many years to these women. I very much hope that the Minister—who, as I say, cannot be blamed for conceiving of this policy—having heard the powerful speeches from parties across the House and being aware of the strength of feeling in our constituencies, will feed back to his colleagues in the Government that a mistake has been made and that the opportunity still remains to right this injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

My predecessor, who I just mentioned, did meet the ombudsman prior to the decision being announced by the Government. Parliament has been very engaged in this issue, as demonstrated today and in January’s debate led by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). The Government have made their decision and it is right that hon. Members hold us accountable for it, as they have done powerfully today.

[Jim Shannon]

The judicial review is pending. It is like the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the Government. Does the Minister fear the judicial review that will, perhaps, force the Government to give WASPI women the compensation and justice they deserve?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that was a statement rather than a question. He knows that the Government will not comment on a live litigation. In answer to questions asked by other Members, I will, of course, be happy to meet with the chairs of the APPG, subject to the constraints of that live legal case. As a Department, we must and will learn the lessons from this case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press for improvements. We want to change how we think about jobcentres and the benefit system. Our youth work coaches talk a lot to disabled young people and are very keen to help more. Our reforms are making that possible, by giving better help and support, and by opening up new opportunities for disabled young people up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My staff member, alongside me, does benefit applications, appeals and tribunals at least five days a week. She overturns 75% of applications in favour of the applicant, which tells me that there is something wrong with the system. I am worried sick for my constituents who suffer from mental and physical issues because of our 30-year conflict. There must be a system that protects my constituents and the people we all represent.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to call for improvements. We want to see improvements in assessments, and he is probably well aware that we will shortly be publishing a Green Paper with proposals for reform to the health and disability benefit system. We will have something to say about this in that document.