Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for setting the scene. Alan Milburn’s report held up a mirror to the stark and uncomfortable reality in the United Kingdom that 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently classified as not in employment, education or training, but a staggering 84% of them actively want to work, learn or train—the work ethic is clearly there.

The report refers to a system failure across health, education and welfare. There has been a devastating 70% increase in the number of young people struggling with work-limiting health and mental health conditions, and the number with a disability has risen from 21% to 44%. My question to the Minister is: what is being done to help those with mental health issues and depression? That failure costs our economy a massive £125 billion annually.

In Northern Ireland, we see exactly the same structural failure. Cutting funding to local youth work and training programmes has stripped away the last line of defence for vulnerable young people—especially care leavers and those from rural communities.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that many young people do not want to go into formalised education? We need to reach out to those communities to try to assist them and deal with this problem once and for all.

[Jim Shannon]

We certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

The problem is not specific to the UK mainland; it affects us back home in Northern Ireland to a great degree. We need a complete shift from a passive welfare state to an active working state. Powers and funding must be handed down to local authorities and the devolved Executives, which understand the job markets in their areas. The mental health system must work hand in hand with employment hubs so that getting better and getting into work are part of the same journey—it is important that we marry those two together. Perhaps more importantly, we need to deliver the promised youth guarantee by providing clear pathways into work, education or apprenticeships, and we need a massive expansion of meaningful work experience placements.

I recognise that the Labour Government have a plan for young people, but if we continue to allow 1 million young lives to remain on hold, we are writing off the future of our workforce and fracturing the social fabric of our communities. It is time to treat youth detachment as the national emergency that it is, break down the silos around Departments and give the next generation the genuine opportunities that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing the debate. I thank all Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who referred to the thoughts of even the most zealous right-wingers. I am not sure where I sit on his zealot-o-meter, but perhaps we will see by the end of my speech—I am sure I will wear it with pride. It is great to be shadowing the Minister; it is always wonderful to debate a fellow Boltonian.

The issues raised by the interim report are made all the more topical by the delay in publishing the final report and by last week’s Budget, which was notable for the absence of any action on the number of young people not in education, employment or training. Alongside the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a figure that should give every Member pause. Over this Parliament, the Government will spend £911 billion on working-age welfare. That is more than £48,000 for every one of Britain’s more than 18 million working households.

There are few subjects this House debates that matter more to the future of our country. Behind every figure in Alan Milburn’s interim report is a young person whose working life is either not starting well or not starting at all.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I highlighted the issue for young people with mental health issues. That the percentage of those affected went up from 21% to 35% is an indication of a special issue for young people today. The hon. Gentleman will know that through his own constituency, as I do through mine. Does he agree that young people’s mental health must be a priority and that we must focus on them to ensure that they get the employment and the purpose in life that they need?

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does in subject matters that he brings to Westminster Hall and the Chamber. He has been very much at the fore in leading the campaign for this. He clearly set out the injustice suffered by Equitable Life policyholders and made a compelling case for proper compensation. I do not intend to repeat everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but the core argument underlying this unresolved issue is profoundly important.

When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake, and acknowledges the financial losses flowing from it, the state should make good in full. I fully recognise that, as was the case in 2010, the state of the public finances is not as we would wish, and the competing demands on the Government are legion. But there are some principles that we should uphold at all cost. I hope that the Government will set out a path to ensure proper justice and fairness for those people affected, as they have rightly done in other important cases.

I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I hope that he can give us the answers and reassurance that we seek on behalf of our constituents. I will focus on one specific issue that I believe requires immediate attention and answers from the Minister: the apparent underspend in the existing compensation scheme and whether funds originally set aside to compensate victims are being retained when they could have been used to provide the redress.

At the heart of this is a simple question. If the Government have acknowledged that people suffered losses because of serious regulatory maladministration, and if money was allocated to compensate those people but it will not be spent for a particular cohort or purpose, should that money return to the Treasury or should it go to the people who were wronged? I suggest the latter. This is not an abstract accounting question; it is one of fairness and public accountability.

I will start with the figures: in 2010, the Government allocated £1.5 billion to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal. That allocation was divided into three principal elements: £625 million for the with-profits annuitants via annual payments for life; £100 million held by the Treasury as a contingency in case those annuitants lived longer than expected; and £775 million for other policyholders. The £625 million allocation for the with-profits annuitants was not the total amount of cash expected to be paid over the lifetime of the scheme, it was a discounted valuation of future payments. EMAG has established that the forecast cash cost of those payments was £836 million, extending to 2050.

The distinction clearly matters, because Government must be transparent about what was committed when, what the forecast spend was and what is now expected to be required. We always thank the Library for the information it gives us, and its briefing on this says:

“The scheme was set up in 2010 to make payments to eligible policyholders who had suffered a ‘relative loss’ (meaning the policyholder would receive less under the Equitable Life policy than they would have if they had invested with a different company).”

In his intervention, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) referred to the fact that people saw Equitable Life and said, “This is the one to invest your money in”. But that did not work out, and it is clear that that has been the issue right down the line.

The EMAG figures also state that approximately £171 million of compensation funding was expected to be unspent as of 31 May 2025. There are three clear elements to that figure. First, approximately £47 million is from the lower-than-forecast annual payments to the with-profits annuitants. Secondly, a £100 million contingency was held back in case those annuitants lived longer than expected; the fact that annual payments to annuitants are significantly below forecast strongly suggests that that contingency is no longer needed. Thirdly, approximately £24 million of the £775 million allocated for other policyholders was unspent—for what reasons, it is unclear. Answers are needed, and I would like to see answers on that unspent figure if possible.

I appreciate that the Minister may wish to distinguish between money that has not yet been spent, money reserved for future liabilities and money that can genuinely be released. That is a legitimate distinction—I understand that—but it makes the need for transparent accounting all the more important. I am sure that the Minister will give us the answers we are seeking. The Government must explain to those affected precisely how much was forecast to be spent, how much has actually been spent and what liabilities are thought to remain outstanding. I must put this on the record on behalf of my constituents: victims of this scandal are concerned that, as well as their having to bear a cut of their acknowledged losses of 78%, the Treasury may be trying to pocket, through clever accounting tricks, more than 10% of the limited compensation that was allocated. I believe that that is a question that must be asked, and the Minister has to answer it on the record.

Can the Minister confirm that the £625 million allocation for the with-profits annuitants was calculated on a discounted basis? Can he also confirm that at the outset of the compensation scheme, cash payments to that cohort were forecast to total some £836 million, so the total cash spend under the scheme was forecast to be around £1.7 billion? If those figures are correct—I understand that they are based on Government-published documents, ministerial correspondence and freedom of information requests that are on record, so the Government have to acknowledge that they are—I ask the Minister for an explanation as to why those funds cannot be redirected towards further compensation right now, because they should be. If they are not correct, we need to understand how and why, although I suspect that as Government figures, they are correct.

The victims of maladministration deserve to know whether the Government are holding on to money that could be put to the use that Parliament intended when legislating for the Equitable Life payment scheme. If the Government dispute the figures, I ask that they publish a detailed breakdown and analysis explaining the difference, which will give us all a chance to come back on that. I will conclude on this point, as I am conscious that others want to speak. If the £100 million contingency remains necessary to cover longevity risk, let us see the evidence. If money can be released, I ask the Minister to set out a plan for doing so. I hope that will be the answer to our queries today. If it is, it would be a massive step forward. I thank the Government for recognising that my constituents need help, but more needs to be done right now, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that can be accomplished.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Manufacturing Skills

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate and setting the scene incredibly well, as he often does. I wish him well in the work that he does for his constituents; I can honestly say that they are fortunate to have him as their MP.

Manufacturing is a cornerstone of the United Kingdom, but it might be in jeopardy of crumbling as young people are not entering the sector in sufficient numbers as against workers leaving the industry. What is the background to the debate? I always give a Northern Ireland perspective and make asks of the Minister; hopefully that adds to the debate and where we are.

Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector is set to rise, with projected growth of 13% between 2025 and 2035. That is in addition to an estimated 101,000 workers expected to leave manufacturing priority occupations, bringing the total demand to around 148,000 workers. That is a lot of people to train and prepare for work. Part of that is because the manufacturing sector has a largely ageing workforce when compared with the wider working population.

A report in 2026 found that some 50% of engineering and manufacturing small to medium-sized enterprises experienced skills gaps and/or shortages. That comes despite Government support efforts, as nearly three quarters of businesses surveyed felt support to address skills shortages were lacking. That is largely unsurprising; there has been no increase in funding for engineering apprenticeships since 2020. In the last few days, the Government have indicated plans, so perhaps the Minister could tell us more about what is happening. It is the very definition of unsustainable and the quality of products will undoubtedly be affected.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that colleges need more support to develop those engineering courses? At present, they receive no funding at all to develop a new course, as university colleges in Somerset have found when catering for the new Agratas factory. They have to find their own investment to develop courses and they receive no funding until those courses have actually started. Surely that hampers innovation, new training and new skills being developed.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Debate and discussion about issues of benefits, entitlements and calculations can often be relegated to the mere spreadsheet, but we all know that there are individuals who sit behind each and every one of those awards and numbers. One of those people—an individual who I have mentioned more than I have mentioned anybody else when speaking in the Chamber—is Pauline Cole.

Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole served our country during the Aden emergency in 1967. She was a trailblazer and she told her story in her book, “Army Girl: The Untold Story”. I believe the Minister has a signed copy of that book. Pauline was funny, fierce and utterly determined, as the Minister got to experience at first hand. She also carried the cost of her service for the rest of her life. Her service left her with skin damage and post-traumatic stress disorder. The military tribunal rightly recognised that reality and awarded her compensation for those lifelong conditions.

That compensation was meant to acknowledge her pain, her injury and the quality of life that she had lost. It should have given her a little bit more security and dignity in her retirement. Instead, the opposite happened. Because military compensation is treated as income when calculating pension credit, which Pauline was receiving, most of what Pauline won at tribunal was effectively clawed back by the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He is a fearless, zealous and assiduous Member for his constituents. We love to hear him come to the Chamber to make his case, and he has done that again tonight. Does he agree that it is a grave injustice when the very compensation awarded to our brave veterans for injuries sustained while serving King, Queen and country is subsequently counted against them as income when calculating means-tested benefits such as pension credit, which he referred to? Does he also agree that the Government must fix this disparity across all welfare and pension benefits, ensuring that our veterans are never penalised financially for the sacrifices that they have made, unlike his constituent?

[Josh Babarinde]

I completely agree. No one should be penalised for serving their country, although that is effectively what happens under the current system. I will come to some of the other benefits that the hon. Gentleman refers to shortly.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill relates to the sovereign grant that Parliament has provided to support the official duties of the monarch and the work of the royal household. The Bill implements the conclusions of the recent royal trustees’ review of that sovereign grant. In doing so, it resets the grant level for the next financial year, giving effect to the commitment of successive Governments and the expectation of the royal household for a reduction in the level of funding following the completion of the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which keen Members will have heard about on the news this morning on the back of the discovery of some historical documents.

The Bill also makes targeted improvements to the statutory framework for this funding, introducing limited flexibilities to ensure that funding levels remain appropriate even in exceptional circumstances. This will make it easier to respond where funding would otherwise become inappropriately low or inappropriately high.

To support the monarch’s official duties, the sovereign grant funds the staff, official travel, property maintenance and essential services for the sovereign to fulfil their unique constitutional role. That role extends beyond ceremonial functions: it includes hosting heads of state, supporting diplomatic engagements, representing the United Kingdom overseas, and strengthening our relationships across the Commonwealth and the world. These activities support the UK’s interests, including trade, investment and security. At home, the grant supports the significant role of the sovereign and the wider royal household, from recognising charitable and voluntary service to bringing communities together across the United Kingdom.

Since 2012, the amount of the sovereign grant has been determined through a statutory framework established by Parliament in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. That framework requires the annual grant amount to be calculated by reference to the previous year’s expenditure and a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate—an independent public corporation whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer. To ensure that funding levels remain appropriate, the 2011 Act requires the royal trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—to conduct regular reviews.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is setting the scene incredibly well. He is right to underline that the British monarchy has clearly been a source of stability across the world, and to say that its unity remains irreplaceable in a world full of division. We acknowledge the ongoing need to review and adjust the sovereign grant, but does he agree that it is vital that the monarchy remains appropriately funded? When he sums up, can he assure us that the monarchy will be funded to effectively fulfil its duty to this country, the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate. I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his engagement in the ways and means debate. I was glad to be able to write to him and to the Opposition in the intervening days to clarify a few points and, I hope, expand on some of the information that I gave during that debate.

Let me briefly touch on the headlines of the three things that the Bill is doing; I will then deal with the points that have been raised, and will wrap up in good time. First, the Bill resets the level of the sovereign grant to reflect the fact that the exceptional funding requirement associated with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme is coming to an end. Secondly, it establishes a revised mechanism for calculating the grant in future years. Thirdly, it introduces limited powers to adjust the grant in exceptional circumstances—powers that have already been discussed in our proceedings—including circumstances in which funding would otherwise become inappropriately high. The Government believe that, taken together, these changes amount to a measured and sensible reform.

I now turn to some of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a valuable contribution. I would have enjoyed hearing more of it, but I understand that he had to keep within scope, and I will ensure that I do so too, Madam Deputy Speaker. His final point was that he does not think it is appropriate for this sum of £99.9 million to go to the royal family. It is worth clarifying that this grant is not for the family’s personal purposes, but to enable His Majesty the King and the working members of the royal family to carry out their official duties on behalf of all of us and of the country.

Turning to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I look forward to debating the proposed amendment in more detail in Committee. I thank the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition for their support and engagement on the Bill.

If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Poole correctly, his key question is: why is the grant set relative to the profits from the Crown Estate at 20.5%, rather than the needs of the household? I reassure him that the key thing is the needs of the household, rather than the figure of 20.5%. The way the trustees arrive at the relevant figure is via a bottom-up assessment of what is required to enable the royal household to carry out its duties on our behalf. It starts not with the relevant percentage of the Crown Estate profits, but instead with the specific needs and requirements of the monarchy.

On my hon. Friend’s specific point about the increase in the sovereign grant over recent years, he is right to point out that it is set to increase by more than inflation, but the trustees interrogated a number of reasons for that when the £99.9 million grant was determined. They include, for example, an £11.7 million addition for a 10-year programme to replace the gas heating systems at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle as part of the royal household’s clean energy transition; £4.3 million to modernise ageing digital infrastructure and strengthen cyber-security, and replace some legacy IT systems, some of which are over 20 years old; and £11.5 million for other cost increases such as on utilities, travel, housekeeping, equipment and professional services.

I do take and understand my hon. Friend’s point about inflation, but I point out that the grant will in effect be frozen—in cash terms—throughout the next five-year period. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the stability of the royal household’s finances. It also goes some way to explaining why the Government do not think that coming back each year would be the most appropriate and efficient way to set the grant. For those seeking to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, particularly with long-term capital expenditure, via the sovereign grant, it is much easier to do so when it is possible to plan on a long-term basis.

[Jim Shannon]

The royal family have buildings, which are of some age, all over the country, and by their nature there is deterioration due to their size, the heating, the roofs, the way the buildings are and the length of time they have been in existence. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to the responsibility of the royal family to look after these buildings, further consideration must be given to those that are showing years—maybe hundreds of years—of deterioration?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Member on that point. These grade I listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments are a very significant part of our national story and, for many, of our national identity. On his point about the quality of the estate, I can tell the House that independent surveys have found that 52% of the estate was at the target condition in 2020, but that had fallen to 38% by 2025.

To conclude, the question before us is a practical one: do we wish to leave in place a framework that no longer properly reflects the end of the exceptional reservicing expenditure on the palace; or do we wish to put in place a revised framework that resets the grant, improves flexibility and preserves the ability of the grant to fulfil its core purpose? The Government’s view is that the right course is the latter. These measures are targeted, proportionate and deliver value for money for taxpayers. They improve the existing framework to the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate, I believe, as Parliament intended. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the qualifying period for Disability Living Allowance for children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. It is right and fitting that I start this debate where it all began for me, with dear Mabel—a brave, kind, clever, funny four-year-old girl who lives in my constituency—and her tenacious mum Rachael. When I was first elected to Parliament, I met with Rachael, my constituent, and she shared her experience with her daughter Mabel, who sadly had been diagnosed with cancer.

Aged four, Mabel was diagnosed with Wilms’, a form of kidney cancer. After a horrifying six months, including two major operations and a tough course of chemotherapy, the family received the news that Mabel was free of cancer. Now, aged six, Mabel attends her local school, where I was fortunate enough to meet her, and is enjoying her life as a young child should. I know that the House will join me in wishing Mabel well.

Following Mabel’s diagnosis, Rachael made an application for disability living allowance, which required completing a 40-page questionnaire that asks questions such as whether the four-year-old needs help monitoring their blood oxygen levels. Disability living allowance is supposed to support families of children with disabilities and serious conditions such as cancer. It can provide a lifeline of financial support at the time when it is most needed, yet the current system requires families to wait three months for the qualifying period. Let me be clear: the financial impact of cancer does not begin after three months. It is instant.

Rachael shared with me that Mabel being diagnosed with cancer was the toughest time of her family’s lives. Despite that, she felt that they were in a more fortunate position than many of the other families on the ward. Rachael’s employer gave her six months off work as sick leave and her partner was able to work flexibly so that they could both spend time with their daughter at hospital. That time allowed Mabel to have support and care from her loved ones, and it allowed support from their family. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish that families face with such a diagnosis—all the more when it is their child. Unfortunately, not every employer is able or willing to offer that support. That disparity should leave us asking: if we cannot be there when a child is diagnosed with cancer, what are we doing?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is debates such as this that remind us of our job as MPs. Does she agree that when a family receive a devastating diagnosis, whether that is of a terminal illness, a severe disability or an aggressive childhood cancer, the financial shock and caring responsibilities are felt immediately? In the three-month qualifying period, families can sometimes accumulate up to £5,000 in additional debt during the most agonising months of their lives, while—I say this respectfully—the Government drag their heels. Will the hon. Lady join me in pressing the Minister, in her compassionate and understanding way, to get Government to recognise that a child’s suffering does not wait 90 days to become real, and to ensure that crucial financial support is delivered from the very point of diagnosis?

[Michelle Welsh]

I absolutely agree. Too often, the financial impacts of a cancer diagnosis are forgotten. People think about the hospital visits, the sickness and the endless tablets, but a disability or serious condition such as cancer has an impact on every single part of someone’s life. Following a diagnosis, families immediately have to deal with the financial impact. It is a sad fact of life that bills do not care whether a child has cancer; they will still be due.

But we can care. Cross-party, we can care. We can unite and do the right thing. Families with children with a disability or serious condition have to wait seven months on average before receiving a single disability living allowance payment. That is months and months of rent, mortgage payments, electricity bills and council tax, and it is weeks and weeks of food shopping. It is compounded by the fact that household income drops by an average of £6,000 per year. For one in three, that can reach over £10,000. Sadly, it gets even worse: the delay in receiving DLA means that a parent’s ability to claim any carer’s allowance as an additional or an alternative has a further impact on the financial strain. It is also important to note that parents in work are unable to apply for universal credit, and that that cuts out other potential streams of support.

All this leaves parents with an impossible choice, a cruel choice that no parent should have to make: do they leave their child alone in hospital to face this battle by themselves, or do they not go to work? Do they skip bills? Do they run the risk of losing their home? Do they not eat? Do they turn the heating off? This is the reality. These are decisions that families should never have to make, yet they happen daily for families up and down this country.

During my meeting with Rachael, she told me about a young boy of just six years old who was also on the ward. His parents were left with no option but to carry on working. As the nurses were unable to provide round-the-clock care, Rachael helped him to use the toilet, helped to dress him and helped him to eat. It is heartbreaking to think of the many children who have no one beside them—not just for the children, but for the mothers and fathers being left with no choice. I missed my son’s first day back at school today and have cried about it, but that is nothing in comparison with having to leave a child who is suffering from cancer in a hospital bed. Let me be clear: DLA is not designed to act as a source of income. It is there to help with the extra costs of looking after a child with a health condition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Lilian Greenwood)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate. She has made a particularly valuable, thoughtful and passionate contribution this morning, and I join her in wishing Mabel, her mum Rachael and their whole family well.

My hon. Friend called this debate to discuss the qualifying period for disability living allowance for children. As we have heard, DLA contributes to the extra costs that may arise as a result of a disability or health condition. For some, it can provide a total of just over £10,000 a year. It is usually paid to the child’s parent or guardian; it can help with the overall family finances and can be used as they see fit to meet their needs. It continues to be paid in full to children and young people under the age of 18 when they are in hospital.

DLA is available if a child’s condition or illness is both of a long-term nature and one that gives rise to care or mobility needs. Payment begins once the three-month qualifying period has been satisfied. That helps to establish that the disability and resulting needs are of the long-standing nature for which this benefit is designed to offer support. The qualifying period provides a sensible division between short and long-term disability, but, importantly, it does not begin with the date of the claim; it starts with the beginning of the need for care and/or mobility that makes the child eligible for DLA. That period can start before the date of claim. The question as to when the need started will be taken into account by decision makers, meaning that consideration will always be given to whether the qualifying period has already been partly or fully completed prior to the date of claim.

[Jim Shannon]

If I have correctly understood what the Minister is saying, if a consultant, GP or other doctor sent a letter confirming that the condition started way before the application was made, that would be the qualifying period, and that would be done by a medical person. Am I reading it right?

[Lilian Greenwood]

It starts with the issue of need. The point at which the child became eligible for disability living allowance marks the start of the qualifying period, even if that precedes the point at which parents make a claim. Understandably, when parents are in very difficult circumstances, their first thought is probably not about applying for disability living allowance. For children who are severely disabled at birth, the qualifying period can start at birth.

The date of claim is usually the date the request for a claim pack is received. Provided that the customer returns the claim form within six weeks, the date of claim will be treated as the date that the claim form was requested. The Secretary of State also has the discretion to extend that period beyond six weeks if the delay is considered reasonable. In the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest has described, we can understand how those issues can arise.

If a child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, special rules are rightly in place. Those claims are always fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component will be paid from the date of the claim. My officials are currently exploring options to enhance bereavement support for parents through the social security system, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders as that work develops.

Given that this debate stems from concerns about how quickly families get the support they need, it is worth highlighting that we have recently made significant improvements to waiting times for new child DLA claims. People are not waiting nearly as long as they did for their claim to be processed. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need to address long waits.

Employment and Training

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin]

Too many of those skilled industrial jobs have disappeared and too many young people today do not see the same opportunities that previous generations had. When we talk about levies like this, we are really talking about whether today’s young people will be given the opportunities that their parents and grandparents had. It is about creating the next generation of engineers and skilled workers who will build, maintain and modernise the infrastructure our country depends on. For many young people, particularly those who do not choose the traditional university route, apprenticeships offer a pathway into secure, highly skilled and well-paid work. By supporting the levy, we are investing in those opportunities and in the workforce our economy will need for decades to come.

We need to ensure that the levy enables maximum opportunity and flexibility, for example by supporting those in the construction industry to use the levy creatively for transport by maybe providing driving lessons, as it is not easy to get public transport to building sites at the hours and times that people need to be attending. Will the Minister work with me to consider how we can use the levy flexibly across the sector?

The truth is that our ambitions for clean energy, advanced manufacturing, industrial decarbonisation and major infrastructure projects will succeed only if we have the skilled workforce to deliver them. No single employer can solve the skills shortages alone. A collective approach allows industry to invest together in training, ensuring we develop not only the workforce we need today but the workforce for tomorrow. We need to find a way to ensure that larger businesses who do not use their full levy work to support the smaller businesses that need it.

Earlier today, the all-party parliamentary group for tradespeople held a roundtable with Checkatrade, presenting new research into young people’s attitudes towards careers in the trades. The findings were encouraging. Almost half are considering becoming a plumber, builder or electrician, while 40% of under-25s now say an apprenticeship is more appealing than a degree. Just 10 years ago, that stood at 3%. An apprenticeship is slowly becoming their first choice. That is a remarkable shift, but it also creates a responsibility. If more young people want to pursue skilled trades, we must make sure the training and opportunities are there. That is particularly important when more than 1 million young people are currently not in education, employment or training.

Will the Minister support cross-party, cross-Government working to ensure that this opportunity is available in Portsmouth, where it is much needed and much wanted? I also know there has been a consultation taking place on the future of the ECITB and the CITB. I ask the Minister to engage with the APPG for tradespeople on those discussions and on the progress that will be made.

Finally, there is a wider national interest at stake. Engineering construction underpins our critical national infrastructure, from our energy networks to defence facilities. In an increasingly uncertain world, Britain cannot rely solely on importing the skills we need. We must develop the home-grown talent, and indeed the city-grown talent, that strengthens both our economy and our national resilience. To do that, we must recognise the barriers to taking up and completing apprenticeships, and ensure we remove them. For communities such as Portsmouth North, this is about restoring opportunity. It is about giving young people the chance to learn a trade, earn a good wage, build a rewarding career and take pride in contributing to Britain’s future, as they once did in my city.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her comments. On opportunities for apprenticeships, whether in construction or whatever they may be, they should also be available in, for instance, fishing and farming. Does she agree that there should be equality of opportunity for women and men to seize apprenticeships, because both can do the job equally well?

[Amanda Martin]

As someone who studied STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects at college, I agree with the hon. Member. We need to ensure that our young people have the maximum number of opportunities to give our country resilience, whether that is in defence, farming or maritime—also something close to my heart—so I whole heartedly agree with him. For those reasons, I am pleased to support the proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is very important that we do not weaken the incentives for care leavers to start work and to progress once they are in work. At the moment, 40% of young care leavers are not in employment, education or training. That is a horrific statistic, so our response is to provide tailored Jobcentre Plus support. We also have the new youth jobs grant of £3,000, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to, which will be available from tomorrow. Care leavers under the age of 25 are eligible for the one-bedroom local housing allowance rate, rather than the shared accommodation rate, so there is a financial benefit there, but our focus is rightly on support into work.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers, as always. In Northern Ireland, care leavers are really untold heroes in the work that they do. Many of us, in all our communities, understand the delivery of care that is provided. In relation to young people, has the Minister had an opportunity to talk to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can move forward with the speed that he seems to indicate? I understand that there are 19,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in Northern Ireland without any employment, so there may be an opportunity here to do better.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be delighted to have that conversation. I speak regularly to the Minister in Northern Ireland about matters in my portfolio, and I would be happy to cover this matter in our next conversation.

Milburn Review: Interim Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to delivering that holistic intervention and ensuring that all areas of the country see progress in this space. As colleagues would expect, we will particularly target those areas where this issue is the greatest problem, and if that includes her constituency, she will see some action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The concept of paying our dues, working long hours and bad shifts, and working our way up are principles that founded the British work ethic, but they now appear something to be embarrassed about. What steps can the Minister take with education Ministers and the voluntary sector to train our children from a young age that working hard at any level is something to be proud of, and that not working if they are able to is not a choice that anyone should profit from?

Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered silica dust exposure in the workplace.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I want to begin by paying tribute to my constituent Caroline Hudson and her sister Sandra, who are both here today. I thank them for their determination in bringing this issue to me and the wider public. None of us should underestimate how difficult it is to relive the loss of a loved one in public, but they are doing so because they do not want other families to suffer the same heartbreak.

Sandra’s husband, George Elliott, was a keen golfer, a proud Spurs fan and a man deeply loved by his family and friends. He was a highly skilled stonemason who worked on buildings including 10 Downing Street. George died in November 2023 from silicosis, a devastating lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust. His family did not know that he had silicosis until his post-mortem. By then it was too late. Before his death, George suffered through severe breathing difficulties, constant exhaustion, oxygen dependency and the cruel deterioration that the disease inflicts upon its victims.

Silicosis is progressive and incurable. Tiny silica particles become embedded in the lungs, causing inflammation and permanent scarring. Over time, lung capacity is destroyed. Victims struggle to breathe, struggle to work and struggle to live normal lives. It also dramatically increases the risk of other serious illnesses, including tuberculosis, kidney disease, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer.

The key thing about silicosis is that it is preventable. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that around 600,000 workers in the UK are exposed to silica dust every year, yet for far too long the Government’s response has not matched the scale or seriousness of the threat. One of my uncles died from mesothelioma. We cannot let silica dust inhalation become another scandal on the scale of asbestos.

It is important to note that silicosis is increasingly affecting young workers—people in their 20s and 30s—and that the increase is largely due to engineered stone. The rise in the popularity of engineered stone has transformed modern kitchens, and these products are now everywhere, but many engineered stones contain extraordinarily high levels of silica—in some cases, up to 95%. When dry cut without proper controls, they release enormous quantities of deadly dust into the air.

The current system is leaving workers vulnerable. I welcome the recent steps the HSE has taken, following public concern and pressure from campaigners, clinicians and affected families. It has declared the dry cutting of engineered stone to be unacceptable, and introduced new guidance requiring water-suppression techniques, respiratory protective equipment and health surveillance, and a programme of more than 1,000 inspections across the UK.

However, there are concerns that the HSE’s current resources, enforcement powers and inspection capacity are not sufficient to deal with what could become a major national occupational health crisis. There is a fear that enforcement remains inconsistent, and that rogue operators continue to evade scrutiny altogether. Does the Minister believe the HSE has the capacity, staffing and resources necessary to effectively regulate the sector? If not, what additional support will be provided?

Australia has already prohibited engineered stone, following hundreds of silicosis cases among workers, and last week California took the first step in that direction. There should be absolute agreement on some fundamental principles: exposure limits must be rigorously enforced, proper personal protective equipment must be mandatory, workers must receive proper training, and health surveillance must become vastly more robust.

Australia’s national screening programme identified hundreds of cases that otherwise might not have been detected until the disease had progressed to a dangerous stage. Experts there found that one in four screened workers had silicosis. Why are we not introducing a targeted national screening programme here in the UK for workers in high-risk sectors, such as kitchen fitters, stonemasons and construction workers? There needs to be a large public awareness campaign for those potentially at risk and for NHS practitioners.

I would like to recognise the journalists who have been campaigning and raising awareness of this issue, including Joe Duggan at The i Paper, and the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Recent analysis provided to senior NHS officials and reported by The i Paper suggests that more than 1,000 UK stonemasons could already have silicosis linked to exposure to engineered stone. The same report estimates that around 4,000 workers in the UK may be operating in informal or illegal parts of the industry, where basic safety protections are routinely ignored.

Silica safety should form part of compulsory training in construction, stonemasonry and apprenticeship schemes. Real-time dust-extraction systems should be properly explored and rolled out where appropriate. Occupational health records and GP systems should better identify workers exposed to silica, so that symptoms are not repeatedly missed or dismissed.

One of the most alarming aspects of this crisis is that we still do not know its true scale. It beggars belief that silicosis was removed from the official list of notifiable occupational diseases in 2013. As a result, cases are frequently hidden within broader categories such as lung cancer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Exposure to RCS dust causes significant occupational health issues, and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland estimates that silica dust exposure is responsible for some 20 lung cancer deaths per year. A quarry worker in Northern Ireland is five times more likely to die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the general male population. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we must ensure that workplaces have the tools and knowledge required to put in place effective protections for workers and visitors to such sites?

[Liz Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for all his work with the APPG. He is of course right: it is vital that we ensure that all workers have the proper protection.

Experts repeatedly warn that silicosis is being underdiagnosed and under-reported, so will the Minister consider how best to collect comprehensive national data on silicosis? Why are we not routinely publishing figures on diagnoses, deaths and occupational exposure? How can policymakers, clinicians and regulators properly respond to a growing occupational health crisis if we do not even have accurate national data?

The APPG for respiratory health and experts have argued that silicosis should once again become a notifiable disease. There are also calls for mandatory or greatly strengthened reporting through schemes such as SWORD —the surveillance of work-related and occupational respiratory disease. I hope the Minister will respond positively to these proposals today.

Early diagnosis matters enormously. Removing workers from exposure early can prevent disease progression in many cases. It can save lives and prevent long-term costs to the NHS. I know the Government have committed to increasing capacity in respiratory services and that the NHS has specialist centres for diagnosing and managing lung diseases such as silicosis. That is welcome, but we need to go further than treatment alone. Prevention must come first, with earlier detection, stronger enforcement and dramatically improved awareness.

I hope that, in the spirit of this debate, we can work on a cross-party basis to ensure stronger legal protections, earlier detection, and meaningful action before more lives are destroyed and more families suffer the heartbreak that George Elliott’s family have endured.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to her for her consistent work on this issue in supporting her constituent, Caroline Hudson, whose brother-in-law, George Elliott, tragically died of silicosis, as we have heard.

I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) in his place, as he invariably is for debates on health and safety matters, and to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too.

I am the Minister responsible for health and safety in the workplace and for the Health and Safety Executive, or HSE. There has rightly been a lot of interest and correspondence lately about the increased dangers of silicosis resulting from engineered stone, the concerns that have been raised in this debate. Workers—often quite young people, as we have heard—who have worked with engineered stone have been made seriously ill or even, on occasion, lost their lives. I want to extend my deepest sympathy to all individuals and families affected.

We have been rightly informed that respirable crystalline silica—RCS—is a fine dust. It cannot normally be seen by the naked eye when airborne, but it does generally arise in visibly dusty processes. It is breathed in through the nose and mouth, can stay in the lungs for years and can cause irreversible lung damage before any symptoms become apparent. The illness it causes can continue to worsen after exposure stops. Breathing in RCS can lead to silicosis and the very serious harms we have heard about. It can also lead to other problems, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said.

Every worker should be able to return home safe from work without fear of succumbing to a preventable deadly lung disease. Silica dust risks have long been recognised but we now know that engineered stone can contain very high concentrations of crystalline silica, as we have been reminded. What is particularly alarming in the past couple of years is the emergence of accelerated silicosis, which is linked to the processing of engineered stone containing high levels of silica at a much higher throughput without effective exposure controls being in place.

As one might expect, engineered stone can be processed much more quickly than natural stone and that means that the volume of silica dust a worker can be exposed to is much greater. As a result, we have seen across the world rapid onset of illness after quite short exposure periods, with severe and irreversible lung damage occurring. As we have rightly been told in this debate, all of that is preventable where exposure to silica dust is controlled. We are determined that it should be prevented. It is well known, as we have been reminded, that Australia introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, and California is now considering a similar approach.

It is worth noting, though, that the danger of silicosis arises from natural stone, not just engineered stone. Having introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, Australia then introduced restrictions on the use of natural stone in September of that year. We are not currently proposing a ban in the UK, because we do not think that is the right approach. HSE is working closely here with the Worktop Fabricators Federation. That has developed, in conjunction with the British Occupational Health Society, for which I have a high regarded, a quality mark for worktops, to reassure consumers that they are buying a worktop that has been produced safely, not putting workers at risk. It has a logo and the wording

“strict silica safety standards applied”.

Being able to display that quality mark is dependent on the fabricator demonstrating to a registered occupational hygienist compliance with a 16-point list, including, for example, point number 3:

“The use of lower silica products (below 30%) wherever possible.”

Accredited products can now be bought from some retailers listed on the Worktop Fabricators Federation website.

As I said, we are going to keep this closely under review, though we are not currently proposing a ban on engineered stone in the UK. It would not solve the problem in workplaces that did not have adequate safeguards, because as I have said, problems can arise with natural stone. And the evidence is clear that workers can be protected from the dangers of engineered stone if the right control measures are in place. Those controls need to be in place now to make sure that exposure to harmful dust does not occur.

One difference with Australia is the concern there about the safety of people installing the worktops. That has not been raised with me as yet. The risk that we have identified here is to people in workshops cutting the materials ahead of installation. There is a serious problem there, but of course it is possible that the problem could arise in installation as well, and we will keep this closely under review.

A ban could lead to unintended consequences with alternative, less well-known materials introducing new risks. Last week, the Health and Safety Executive met Safe Work Australia—the body responsible—to discuss the impact of the ban there. It did an initial review and it identified potential concerns that the ban had led to complacency about the safety of other products that are not prohibited, suggesting that they were assumed to be safe to use without control measures when actually they are not. Control measures are needed for those products as well. But we are going to keep in touch with Safe Work Australia and keep the experience of the ban in Australia under review.

A lot of workers in Britain work with these materials every day. Workers and their employers need to understand that controls to prevent exposure are essential, not optional. For many decades, we have had in place a robust regulatory framework—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, known as COSHH. That includes the need for control measures, substitution with less harmful materials, and health surveillance. There is also a workplace exposure limit of 0.1 mg per cubic metre for working with silica. That ceiling must not be exceeded, but those with duties are required to minimise exposure below that level. The HSE has published a range of practical guidance—some of it very recent—for those where risks are highest. That is focused on the need to control the dust at source. But the law and guidance are effective only when followed, and it is here that the HSE is now focusing its efforts.

Over the last two years, the HSE has been building the evidence base, working with suppliers and developing an effective response. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Eastleigh welcome that activity recently.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Not just at the moment. I may be able to later.

Last month, the HSE launched a campaign specifically on this area of risk, with dedicated pages and resources on the HSE’s Work Right website. Media activity supported the launch; there was coverage in national publications and trade media, as well as the HSE appearing at the Natural Stone Show at the Excel centre in London.

Also last month, the HSE published new COSHH guidance for those working with engineered stone. Businesses now have unambiguous instructions on what the law requires for compliance to be achieved. The guidance sets out what is expected to protect workers: water suppression of dust and mist control, appropriate respiratory protective equipment and effective ventilation. Those are not optional extras; they are what is required to comply with the law. Dry cutting of engineered stone is not acceptable. It must not happen anywhere. When dry cutting happens, workers will be inhaling significant quantities of silica dust. Where it remains on their clothing, they are also potentially spreading that silica dust to others.

The HSE has also strengthened its guidance on health surveillance to make it clear that where there is a risk of exposure, employers must ensure that workers’ health is regularly monitored. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh correctly raised.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. The dangers are significant for those who visit factories and quarry sites. The Minister outlined that there is a strict statutory need for protective clothing and respiratory mouth covers. Is that the true for people who visit these sites, so they are not affected by this as well?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Employers need to take care that visitors to their premises are protected. What is being done includes making sure that workers at risk are having respiratory health checks, lung function testing and X-rays at intervals decided by an occupational health professional, and that employers have clear processes for identifying and reporting symptoms. In this debate, the importance of carrying out reporting has rightly been identified. The HSE is currently consulting on expanding the requirements in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations to include silicosis once again. The consultation on that is under way, and it will conclude at the end of the month. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was quite right to raise that issue.

For those who choose not to comply with the law, we need effective enforcement. Starting in April and throughout the summer, HSE will be carrying out more than 1,000 inspections across the industry. It will inspect every place that we know of where this stone is being cut— if anyone knows of a place that we may not be aware of, please let me know; I want to make sure that HSE can go and look at it. HSE has carried out 13 inspections since they started at the end of April. Those were visits to places that concern was expressed to us about. Out of the 13 inspections so far, two businesses had ceased trading, but six of the remaining 11 were made to stop processing immediately. Prohibition notices were served for dry processing, unguarded machinery or both. Eight businesses received improvement notices for failing to provide the correct respiratory equipment, while eight received them for failing to provide health surveillance for employees. Just one of the 13 was operating in an exemplary way.

Through the programme, HSE will inspect every site it can identify in the country that works with engineered stone. HSE’s inspectors are being briefed on the programme this week. The resources are available to do the job properly, and inspections are under way across the country. Wherever standards are not met, enforcement action will be taken, including a prohibition notice if necessary. As a result of the inspections, HSE may give a duty holder advice or, where there are more significant concerns, issue improvement or prohibition notices that require a duty holder to make improvements or stop dangerous activities altogether. The inspections are now under way, and we are determined to drive out the poor practice behind the problems we have heard about in this debate.

We remain committed to ensuring that every worker in every sector is properly protected from this entirely avoidable harm. I welcome the contributions of Members who spoke today. I commend the campaign of The i Paper on this issue and all those who are working to highlight this important and alarming development. I will continue to monitor the evidence available in this country and keep an eye on what is going on elsewhere in the world. I will be very happy to consider further measures if it becomes clear that they are needed.

Question put and agreed to.