Commons Chamber

Wednesday 9th July 2025

(began 4 days, 7 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
Christine Jardine Portrait Christine Jardine MP (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to welcome good news for Ferguson Marine this morning. Scottish Liberal Democrats are good funding for keep objects across Scotland in last year's budget negotiations including a pavilion in Edinburgh which is so important to my constituents in Edinburgh West. We welcome the additional funding as part of the Spending Review to help projects like this. Because almost two decades of SNP mismanagement has left our health service in dire need of investment, does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP should invest this wisely in GPs, dentists, and care, so our constituents can seem the same focus on innovation and health as was announced by the UK government last week? To Mr Speaker, the honourable Lady mentions a good point about the Lady mentions a good point about the Pavilion in Edinburgh which is symptomatic of the whole SNP symptomatic of the whole SNP approach which is promised this many times, and they will undoubtedly times, and they will undoubtedly make the same promises and pledges make the same promises and pledges next year.

One in six Scottish people are stuck on an NHS waiting list, an app that is years behind the rest of the UK we have the worst cancer waiting times on record. So I'm sure the honourable lady and millions of other Scottish people millions of other Scottish people will know the SNP have failed the NHS. If they knew how to fix it they would have done it by now. would have done it by now.
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
None Portrait Q6. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers of 16 April 2025 on women in Scotland. (905054)
-

approach. The latest figures show 40% of the value of APR went to just 7% of climates. That is neither fair nor sustainable.
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
None Portrait Prime Minister's Question Time
-

We now come to prime ministers questions.
12:01
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Question number one Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker on Monday we mark the 20th anniversary of the mark the 20th anniversary of the despicable terrorist attacks on 7/7. despicable terrorist attacks on 7/7. The painful memories of that dark day are deeply ingrained. 52 people were murdered, and many more were murdered, and many more injured. We thank our emergency services who ran towards danger with services who ran towards danger with true bravery and send our deepest condolences to the victims, the survivors, Brive, and all those survivors, Brive, and all those forever affected by that appalling forever affected by that appalling day.

May I also extend our deepest condolences to the family and for of condolences to the family and for of Lord Tebbit. We remember his profound courage in the face of profound courage in the face of terrorism, and a fierce devotion to his wife, Margaret. May he rest in his wife, Margaret. May he rest in peace. Mr Speaker we also mark the 30th anniversary of the genocide of 30th anniversary of the genocide of Srebrenica. We remember those lost and we redouble our efforts to fight and we redouble our efforts to fight hatred and intolerance.

Mr Speaker and delighted to welcome President Macron to the United Kingdom. Our relationship has never been stronger stop we are focused on tough new tactics to tackle illegal migration, major economic investment to create jobs, and leading allies to support Ukraine. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:26
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
I join him in his thanks to the veterans who are here with us today and extended thanks to all vectors. and extended thanks to all vectors. He notes that this is serious. The scheme that was set up by the party opposite had issues, and he knows it. It was not... It would have meant immunity from prosecution for those who committed the most appalling terrorist crimes and that is why it did not have support from communities or any political party in Northern Ireland and that is among the reasons why it was found to be unlawful and so we must get this right.

We do not get there by cheapening the debate. It's not about political point scoring. I worked in Northern Ireland and spoke to many people affected and I know that we must get this right and I want us to do it together in the House if you possibly can, because it matters. It must be done in a serious way, to address the matters of the past, of course, in a way to support victims and survivors and that is the key test because without the support of victims and survivors, it is very hard to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland.

That is why we have to work in the way that we are doing. In advance of this, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to engage with veterans to ensure that the legacy findings are fair and proportionate and I will continue to work with him and others in the House because the most important thing is not scoring points but getting it right.
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown Court Bench Division and related sentencing changes
-

stated. It is now the record. Let us move on now. We come to the Urgent Question. Shadow Secretary of State Robert Jenrick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict jury trial
12:42
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
on her plans to restrict jury trial through the creation of a Crown Court bench division and related sentencing changes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, this government inherited a justice system in inherited a justice system in crisis. With record and rising backlogs in our criminal courts leaving victims in limbo waiting to see justice done. For this reason, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a look at the criminal code. We are grateful to him for all his work. His report confirms that the system that we confirms that the system that we inherited is broken.

And that if we do nothing it will collapse. We welcome the ambitious welcome the ambitious recommendations he put forward and agree that a crisis on this scale agree that a crisis on this scale requires bold action. We must consider any measures that will put our courts on a more stable and sustainable footing. Victims and the sustainable footing. Victims and the public deserve swifter justice and a court system that they can have confidence in. We will consider the recommendations on jury trials along with everything else carefully.

Before providing a formal response Before providing a formal response to Parliament. And we will do so in the autumn. Jury trials are and will remain a cornerstone of British justice, and will remain in place for the most serious cases. However, justice delayed is justice denied. The system was not designed for a scenario where there are tens of thousands of victims waiting years for justice. The Lord Chancellor and this government is committed to turning the tide on the Crown Court backlog by the end of this Parliament and creating a sustainable justice system fit for the 21st-century.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker all of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is one pretends that this is straightforward. This government has made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and is at a record high, and exhilarating. 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson's every month. Sir Brian Leveson's review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court must increase the number of court sitting days, and we thank you for his work and welcome any of his recommendations.

However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount for those convicted of crimes like burglary and stalking. crimes like burglary and stalking. This could see criminals serve as little as 1/5 of their sentence when combined with the gawker review. 20% of a sentence is served, is that of a sentence is served, is that justice for victims? Out-of-court settlement for drug dealers and thieves meaning they won't even get thieves meaning they won't even get thieves meaning they won't even get a criminal record.

It makes a mockery of the Criminal Justice Bill justice concerning is the proposal to cut jury trials. The report admits this will only have limited effect, it will save £31 million, 0.2% of the department budget. As the report says, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether. Jury trials
12:46
12:46
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country's rejection of one of our country's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rejection of one of our country's What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It's extraordinary the shadow justice secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency. Where was it in the last 14 years? The so-called party of law and order that allowed two things to happen, first taking the prison system to the brink of collapse, letting down the public and victims, soft on crime and law and order. Secondly, a loving the backlogs in Crown Courts to run out of control and reach record highs.

They did nothing in 14 years. Let me explain the difference with the government who is tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own, so David Gauke, to give us the Sentencing Review and Sir Brian Leveson I set out his recommendations today. We will not give the response because they demand it. We will listen to serious and careful analysis and provide the formal response to the House in the autumn but we are not delaying and waiting, but investing in the system.

To take up a challenge about what was said by the Lady Chief Justice we've already done what they failed to do with more sitting days, record levels, up from 40 so-called record levels, up from 40 so-called party of -- up from 40 so-called party of law not offered. It is not just about adding more sitting days. As Sir Brian Leveson tells us, we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis. We must build system capacity with more judges, prosecutors, court cases.

Of course, you have to invest in the system. That is what the government is doing and we are putting an additional £450 million additional into quotes that what the party opposite offered because we are laser focused on providing swifter justice for victims and restoring public confidence in the justice system which was left to rack and ruin by the party opposite. He has jumped the gun. We have been clear. We will consider the careful and detailed report of Sir Brian Leveson, listen to victims, listen to barristers and judges who do an exceptional job, and we will do what it takes to look at a victim of red, who, today, if she reports a rate of serious crime, is being told she will have to wait for her day in court.

-- rape. That is unacceptable and that is why we will do whatever it takes with the seriousness that the other side simply failed to do.
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:30
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:38
Chris Bloore Portrait Chris Bloore MP (Redditch, Labour)
-
-
And Q. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a built to require schools to maintain an allergy management policy to require schools to hold the supply of juggling water injections for treating allergic reactions -- adrenaline injections. I'm grateful for the Minister for being in his place and his constant dialogue on this issue but as he knows, I'm not the first to raise the inadequacies of our current laws protecting children with allergies in schools. Many Members across this House has spoken on the issue yet horrific incidents continue.

Allergies are something of a sick spirit. One in three people in the UK lives with an allergic disease. Hospital admissions have risen and 50% of children are affected by at least one urgent condition. Every year approximately, 42,000 new cases require care. Studies show incidents of food allergies in England no double between 2008 and 2018, with the prevalence of 4% among preschool children. At school, food and allergies affects around two children in every classroom. Children spend significant time of their lives at school and 80% of food allergy reaction including first-time anaphylactic actions.

Many children who had prior reactions are not prescribed in auto-injector. So relying solely on them carrying it is dangerous. With an ever-growing number of children requiring allergy care, it is ever more and vital that the place where we entrust our children as a safe environment but too often it is not. And deputy speaker, I cannot compare the pain that some families have had to endure because they have lost a child. It is agreed as a father that I can't ever hope to experience but I do know that when current guidance and legislation allows a patchwork of different standards in our schools, we can and must do better.

There is a glaring lack of consistency across schools in the UK regarding allergy management. There's a 50-50 chance school that your child goes to would have a spare adrenaline auto-injectors pen available stock there is a 55% chance the training has been provided to staff and managing allergies in school or on trips, and one in four chance that staff had no training on how to identify allergy symptoms or what to do in an emergency. Furthermore there's one in six chance school does not have an individual plan for peoples with allergies and have a 13 transmit school does not have an allergy policy.

With the prevalence of allergies rising, and a steep increase in hospitalisations due to allergic reactions, we must act to change and unacceptable". School staff deserve to know how to prevent allergic reactions and be prepared to manage them if an incident occurs. Children deserve to learn in a safe and inclusive environment and parents deserve the confidence to send their children to school knowing adequate measures are in place. The Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill would require all schools to have an allergy policy in place.

Currently 70% of schools lack basic protections and one in three schools have no allergy policy in place. Reducing these policies would create a whole school approach to allergy safety, making it everyone's responsible tea to embed good allergy practices and know their role in protecting children. This will include how to manage allergies on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, grounds and dining rooms, ensuring children with allergies are not excluded and supported in an inclusive school environment. Without these policies, children with allergies often miss out on opportunities.

Research foundation found 70% of parents reported that allergic child to school due to their allergy, sometimes driven by anxiety. Children should never miss learning opportunities out of fear and this bill can help change that. Alongside allergy policies, the bill requires allergy training for school staff, enabling them to create a safe environment. Research shows 60%, 70% and school staff have not received any allergy awareness training. The bill would provide guidance on adapting class practices, including safe activities, understanding the mental health impact of food allergies and how to respond in those emergencies.

The bill also mandates that schools can have spare auto injector so that staff have the medication and training to take subduction. When every second counts, this simple step could be life-saving. Auto- injector should be treated like defibrillators. They should be accessible and accompanied by a trained member of staff. Although there are examples of good practice without a national framework, it is a postcode lottery when a child, whether a child will attend the school with adequate training policies and vital medication.

This inequality leads to missed school days, unnecessary emergency visits, bullying and lower attainment. Providing spare pens and policies that every school removes the tree. Safety should not depend on a child's location or their families income. Current legislation is insufficient. Schools in England follow statutory guidance such as supporting pupils with medical conditions at school and the early years foundation stage, but neither explicitly and dates safeguards for peoples with allergies. The Benedict Blythe foundation highlights this is a lack of clear expectation, leading to a wide variation of allergy safety across this country.

The three pillars of this bill, staff training, allergy policies, and spare adrenaline auto-injectors, can save lives. These recommendations come from corners with sports after tragic incidents. We must learn and feel these gaps to create a safe expense for children. Too many teachers and acknowledge they need, don't have the support they deserve, and too many children allergies are still not offered a safe fit for purpose environment to learn. I hope today after an off a lot of talking, we can get on with the doing.

-- After an awful lot of doing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. The ayes have it, bring in the bill. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. He will prepare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Chris Bloore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schools Schools (Allergy Schools (Allergy Safety) Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill. Second reading, what day? Second reading, what day? Second reading, what day? Sean number two on property assets acceptance built Lords minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", Of the opinion, say, "Aye", Of the contrary, "No", I think The "Ayes" contrary, "No", I think The "Ayes" of it. The "Ayes" have it. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
13:46
13:47
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
will be convenient to the existing bill and all the amendments to the bill selected. I call Sian Berry to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment 39. Thank you, Madam Chair. When one in five people received the in five people received the universal payment and disability payments that have used a food bank payments that have used a food bank in the last five months, the disability premium laid out by scope disability premium laid out by scope has reached £1095 per month here in Parliament we must do better for this bill before us today. Madam this bill before us today. Madam Chair, when the pathways to the paper has terrified so many of our constituents, when the basic rate of Universal Credit cannot cover the Universal Credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better and this bill we must do better and this bill before us today.

Madam Chair, when before us today. Madam Chair, when the orders of magnitude away from the tough to assist disabled people, when we have such a deeply unequal when we have such a deeply unequal society already and a wealth tax with no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament, we must do better in in Parliament, we must do better in this bill before us today. From the Green Papers to where we are now, Green Papers to where we are now, the government's behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think that you should be ashamed and think that you should be ashamed and apologise.

My constituents and the people that love and care for them have been subjected to chaos, have been subjected to chaos, confusion, and indignity step and instead of making improvements with careful consideration to what is a compact and treacherous benefit system, the Government has rushed to fit the imperatives of the budget table, bypassing evidence gathering and scrutiny in this House and further limiting the power of The Other Place by making this a Money bills.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, the trim and as a fit of people, power, bravery from people opposite has won last-minute opposite has won last-minute concessions for claimants currently, but still the Government should scrap this unfair and harmful scrap this unfair and harmful legislation due to the harm it would do to future people who find themselves in need of support. This themselves in need of support. This bill is not a tough decision, it is bill is not a tough decision, it is the wrong decision.

Here in Parliament, we must do better than this bill before us today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I commend the honourable lady for the points she brings forward for the points she brings forward and I think that the day is probably the crux of where we are in the bill and does the Noble Lady accept that and does the Noble Lady accept that the reason people get more money when they qualify for the health element of Universal Credit as because illness means more because illness means more expenditure, perhaps a certain diet or the need for a warmer home and does the honourable lady not then accept that to have that amount on accept that to have that amount on to 270 a month would definitely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 270 a month would definitely affect the most vulnerable people, the very people the honourable lady says they are trying to help. I think the honourable member for giving those examples of the biting giving those examples of the biting things that they are used for and why they are so necessary not to cut them. My amendment 39 affects clause 1. The only at all positive clause on the belt as it stands now. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the allowance of Universal Credit and beyond inflation by 2.3% in the yes.April 26, writing to 2029.

My amendment quite implicitly uplift percentage of 4.8% the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of Universal Credit is much needed, setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, Joseph Rowntree Foundation says the basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills, and trouble. It does not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need. My assessment 39 goes some way towards this, and the joint briefing to MPs from service providers and disabled People's groups highlights it in its recommendations.

Now I realise that the question on many people's minds at this moment is how can the country pay for this boost to Universal Credit and that removal of cuts to PIP. The answer lies with the Chancellor. Something that my green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since they introduced the Green Papers. On that day, 18 March, I asked why impoverishing disabled people to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax and the honourable member for Chislehurst, the honourable member from Liverpool and the honourable member for West Derby also spoke up for that same measure also spoke up for that same measure Honourable Members have asked these questions of the House and it is not just MPs suggesting this and it is not just charities like Oxfam, the equality trust, it is not just campaigners like tax justice UK.

And it is not just patriotic millionaires who say they're holding shows 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Now, it is also to former leaders of the Labour Party who are now talking about this as a serious option. There are, I should say, other ways to look at taxing unearned wealth as a wider package than the simple proposal that is making unlikely allies of millionaires and local leaders, but when Ferrer taxes on assets, that absolutely can and should work for the nation, are should work for the nation, are finally being put into the budget, I think that the view of this House is clear, that the cuts target and the spreadsheet for the Department for Work and Pensions should be the first to go, including the two-child benefit cap as well.

So, that is how we should be for the improvements needed to this bill. I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a great believer in a wealth tax rather than taking money from disabled people. Simple as, disabled people. Simple as, bottomline. My honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bottomline. My honourable friend will they see what the wealth tax would look like as far as the Green Party is concerned? I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for that question. Indeed, I have referred to the patriotic millionaires and they have done some millionaires and they have done some extensive work on this with their considerable resources and they have considerable resources and they have set out a 2% wealth tax on people with more than £10 million in with more than £10 million in wealth. They have also piled this with the general public and found 75% of the general public hugely 75% of the general public hugely support this measure as well, not just as an alternative to cuts to just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but also as a general principle.

Madam Chair, clause 1, principle. Madam Chair, clause 1, would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39 and this change alone would not make it a change alone would not make it a build up this House should pass and removing clause 5 is involved in the Government proposes will not be enough either for this House to enough either for this House to pass. Clause 2 even once amended by the Government would cut in half the health element of Universal Credit for nine in turn you claimants and I will speak later about the criteria for those conditions, so without amendment to a proposed by the honourable member for Leeds East, clause 2 should be removed from the bill.

Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of Universal Credit for the rest of the Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the bill. Clause 2 removed from clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits and so these should be removed from the bill as my amendment 14. Madam Chair, what I am saying is that the bill consists of a much improved one and clause 2 would almost be a build at the House in good conscience could pass and we do have the choice to grant such a bill today.

And as well as these changes amendment like amendment 12, the honourable member, there are some new clauses that would help make it even more fit for purpose. We have brought the vital principle that we send for today is that any policy changes about disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day that this was published I also raised coproduction of the Secretary of State and this has been talked about by many members, the experience of coproducing policy and we talked about the Government thanks to strong campaigners from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other MPs. I will happily give way. I agree with the member statement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the member statement in regards to that and regards to any statement taking this forward, any statement taking this forward, but with the member agree with me that it is crucial that young people are also cleared because of the conditions that they face as well, conditions that they face as well, mostly the challenge when they move to the transition there that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister still has. I am grateful for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for that intervention, and, indeed, when I have gathered together young people in my own constituency, the issues in my own constituency, the issues that they face is that there voices must be heard, so now the Government has said it is committed to has said it is committed to coproduce the review with disabled people and disabled People's organisation. The disabled people's organisations are Disability Rights organisations are Disability Rights UK have told us that such promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick box exercise, production in name only and that the governance original plans are the inevitable original plans are the inevitable results, that is why I have signed new clause 8 from the honourable member as well as new clause 11 from member as well as new clause 11 from the honourable member from Penistone first and if clause 2 in its schedule remains in the severe conditions criteria simply cannot conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written.

It appears either Government meant to exclude people with fluctuating buy from conditions like Parkinson's or the universal element or Ministers completely overlooked this when pushing on of this through. I say that the criteria that we withdraw support from people with these supports are unassertive, and that is why I have signed amendment 38 and amendment 17 from the honourable member from Dunfermline. The severe conditions criteria also say any diagnosis must be made in the NHS, which, again, seems either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction because I have also signed amendment 33 from the honourable member.

To close, today, I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today, so that many of our constituents remain scared by the bill. Bread from the date of the careless release of the Green Papers, with terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto. They have been forced into a cruel limbo, and it is shameful that this Government has chosen this path, and Labour Government showing itself far more willing to punish disabled people and as the most wealthy to shoulder the burden, fair public spending on real, essential security.

And I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on this bill to date. Action by disabled people and allies has forced MPs to listen and take action and forced this Government to withdraw the most brutal powers, but still the bill before us today remains an acceptable and I look forward to hearing much since, including the United Nations has told us from that many Honourable Members in this debate sharing those values. My green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise this bill to make it do good, not harm, and, ultimately, if not to see it through.

And I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this has all become. Amendment 39 proposed close one as on the amendment paper, the question is that the amendment be
13:58
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

made and I called the chairman of the Select Committee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to my amendment and the amendments associated with it, but before I get into the substance of it, I would like to thank the build committee clerks for their invaluable advice for the amendment drafting expertise as well. But could I also thank the dozens of disabled people, their organisations, disability charities, academics, and think tanks, the provided evidence to the pension Select Committee to work inquiry? And, of course, I would like also to acknowledge the clerk's team and particularly the deputy Clerk that has led that inquiry.

And the importance of select committees in approving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be underestimated. As I said last week, there is general recognition in the social security system that it needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts in support to vulnerable people will stop there are many positive measures and pathways to get Britain working which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people's lives, helping people into work and staying in work.

But there is also evidence of the impact of other Government departments on getting and keeping Britain working. For example, increasing NHS capacity and funding allocation to areas of high need will have the direct and positive impact on health status. And the participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in these areas. The 2018 health rebels report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting this in areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3%, and increase productivity by 13.2 billion per year.

And although we have launched the NHS firm and many positive measures in this comedy additional targeted NHS capacity ends April next year. Similarly, the Charlie Mayfield Review on keeping Britain working will hopefully set out how we can realign our labour market to address the disability employment gap, including retaining skilled workers who become sick or disabled, and that will not be published until the autumn, later this year. It will take a lot longer than six months to make the cultural changes needed to address the inequalities in employment many disabled people For each disability confident role there are currently 121 people on incapacity benefit.

More affluent areas, more jobs available, but in deprived from industrial areas it is much worse, with one job for 333 disabled people. That is why my amendment to, B, and associated amendments are seeking to delay the introduction of changes you see health from April 26 to November 2026. At a cost of £141 million. That would be in terms of the reduction in savings that the government has previously estimated for. This is to allow for the NHS capacity to wrap up and to ensure funding follows health need, so people with newly acquired conditions or impairments can receive early treatment, a better aligned labour market that will enable them to return to.

Without this, there is the risk that 45,000 more newly disabled people and their children will be pushed into poverty. I acknowledge and thank the government for the concessions they made over the last couple of weeks and which allowed many of us to support this bill at second reading. Just to clarify, these concessions include the protection of existing PIP claimants and that removal of the reference for new PIP claimant needing to achieve four point of the assessment through the deletion of clause 5, that is the government amendment.

Instead, from November 2026, new claimants will take part in a new assessment, an outcome from the dim split review which will coproduce with disabled people and their organisations -- Mr Timms PIP review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her. One of the things I get on other MPs get is the issue of get on other MPs get is the issue of decisions made on PIP and Universal Credit applications, and ESA applications. They tell me that applications. They tell me that there is a harshness and how the decision is made. Does she share my concern, my concern is that those concern, my concern is that those harsh decisions should have experts harsh decisions should have experts looking at them and should be passionate and understanding.

Does she agree? That is a sort of system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she agree? That is a sort of system we need from the people we represent. I am grateful to my honourable friend for his intervention. I do agree we need a more compassionate system. But I also believe that we system. But I also believe that we need to have a system that is co- produced by the people at actually going to be affected by a new going to be affected by a new assessment process. So I think yes, a more compassionate system but I think that will be built in by the people that undertake the coproduction of that new assessment.

If I could continue, I was disappointed that the government did not take the opportunity to set out the coproduction of the review by the coproduction of the review by putting it on the face of the bill. And I hope the Minister can address that in his remarks. As such, I'm supporting new clause 11 in the name of my honourable friend the member for Preston and Stockton. In addition, the government has agreed to protect people on you see health with severe conditions or terminal diagnosis, both existing and new claimants, and assure in wards will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be updated annually in real terms. I'm very grateful to the honourable lady and like her are honourable lady and like her are welcome some of the concessions that welcome some of the concessions that were given at the last minute last week. But does she not share my concerns, in particular the point of concerns, in particular the point of RUC health, that it is still £2 billion in costs that will still billion in costs that will still impact over 700,000 people, meaning impact over 700,000 people, meaning they will get 3,000 less, and this is some of the most vulnerable people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. Let us be clear, this is applying to particular newly acquired conditions and my argument is, by delaying it, we can ensure that delaying it, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability, or a condition, can disability, or a condition, can receive treatment and care quickly, if we ensure that the NHS ramps up if we ensure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. So that's my argument. I don't think it's ideal argument. I don't think it's ideal but I think it is a reasonable compromise which I hope the government will listen to.

Let me government will listen to. Let me continue. Both in terms of, in terms of severe conditions, people with new and existing severe conditions, will be protected and this is covered in government amends two and New Cross one. There was significant evidence of the potential harm for disabled people that would have experienced if the bill had remained in its previous form. The conditions that were made over the last couple of weeks that concessions to track have addressed that and I applaud the government for that.

It was definitely the right thing to do. When this evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer-term, it is right that we think again and I do urge the government to consider my amendments. There is also strong evidence that the government will make savings in Social Security spending in the long-term, in terms of caseloads, case offloads, will be achieved naturally as I've mentioned before, in terms of the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market, and of course the bringing forward of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employment support. Thank you. Thank you, it's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, it's a pleasure to take part in this debate. The bill, as you know, is being rushed through as you know, is being rushed through by a Labour government desperate to paper over cracks of an economy paper over cracks of an economy which it itself has brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions coming before the House at questions coming before the House at the moment results from that economic flatlining and the flailing
14:08
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
economic flatlining and the flailing of a government which costs around desperately to see how it can get itself offered economic hook. It simply, this bill is unaffordable. Prime Minister's latest concessions to his unruly and now happy and victorious backbenchers has left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug and this inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families already feeling the pinch. And far too few of those voices will be heard today, too often in this house, the whole debate is consumed with how more spending is a better thing, how it can always be afforded and no responsible decisions need to be made.

That was the decision of the backbenchers of the party opposite. Control of one of the flagships of this government's agenda, and leaves the government now like some great massively endowed, as it is, with Members of Parliament, like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, sitting listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along. And as we know, in this chamber, the next wave that comes along and profits from the left, this Labour government is all too often the honourable lady who I'm happy to give way to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. I hope he's not for giving way. I hope he's not suggesting in his comments that those hard-working families who use those hard-working families who use PIP to be able to get to work on not voices that we should hear in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber. I would absolutely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would absolutely agree with the honourable lady that we go we can consider people like that. I think of the Lady Caine to seamy Saturday of the Lady Caine to seamy Saturday at my Street surgery who was concerned about the PIP process and from her point of view the brutality from her point of view the brutality of it and the way she and her husband, who has a degenerative aggressive disease for which there aggressive disease for which there is no cure, were put through the ringer in order to justify which ringer in order to justify which anybody could see a situation actually deserve support.

But she actually deserve support. But she will be aware of that mushroom in the claims by those with various the claims by those with various levels of mental health challenges, far greater than previously, and ultimately, we must balance looking ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative aggressive diseases in a humane and aggressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner, but also make sure that we have a system which cuts out fraud, which seeks to minimise those who don't need aid, seeing it and getting it, and if only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money they do not deserve and need we will be able to look after the people, which I think in one area of commonality between the honourable lady and myself, would want to see fair and more generous treatment of people in that position.

I thank him for giving way. Would my honourable friends agreed that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in the mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for -- support, sometimes nearly 2 years, which increases the condition, and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work, and that also has increased demand on PIP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his contribution. We on this, I should say, side, this We on this, I should say, side, this corner of the house, as conservatives, we know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, it's safeguards is not leadership, it's not generous kind, is an abdication of responsibility and its economic of responsibility and its economic negligence. Let me be clear, this bill in its current form looks in billions of pounds of additional billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year.

-- Blocks in. Have already seen Blocks in. Have already seen Britain's debt interest forecast saw and the bond markets during, or in and the bond markets during, or in jittering, charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which members opposite so love to prefer. members opposite so love to prefer. And inflation of course as proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment with no plan to pay for it except with no plan to pay for it except reading deeper into taxpayers pockets.

The Chancellor might not say it outright but families in say it outright but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this the country know exactly where this ends up, with them paying more. The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning, U- turning his way throughout his time in office but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister ending to pressure from the left of his party, so well represented on the benches opposite today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting government which has lost now or propulsion.

Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy, which was promised, the foundations if your member, those repeated phrases, Labour has chosen the easy route, higher spending, higher borrowing, and inevitably higher taxes. Not on some ethical class of superrich people which the Greens propose. On ordinary men and women. People who get up in the morning, work hard and look after themselves, and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives, and that needs to be a political tended to.

That is why I have tabled two amendments. The first ensures that Parliament retains control over future annual above inflation increases. It means House of Commons must excessively approve continuing these rates beyond 27/28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. The second, new coastline, requires the government to report on fraud and error arising from the provisions which we are debating today. Given the scale of welfare fraud, have seen in recent years, it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 million.

It is only right that we get a proper handle on right that we get a proper handle on my tax payers money is going. I would happily give away if there were members who were interested in controlling public finances. If there were members who wanted to show responsibility with the public finances, not running up the national credit card in responsibly, which is their want and those efforts by the frontbench opposite have now come to naught. They have given into their backbenchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this government.

Together, the straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse will be there and help reduce waste and misuse. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured well. And members opposite can shout and scream in frustration but they will have their time to speak. But in reality, this does not, is not a fair and measured bill, it achieves nothing but a two tier benefits system, unfunded spending commitments and ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working It's telling that the Secretary of State has not matched these spending increases to tackle fraud or spending error or indeed tie any uplift with measures to help people back into work.

In short, she has failed to ensure that there are clear performance measures in place in order to guarantee value for money for the taxpayer without which the taxpayers will continue on a slippery slope of simply paying more while getting less, and if the honourable gentleman could tell us how he has committed to making sure that the public finances in this country are kept in a healthy state the House looks forward with bated breath.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am really intrigued as the honourable member said yesterday he has a concern are tackling fraud and responsibility of finances. Can he tell us where he was under the last Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of UK social seen in the history of UK social security systems. Where are his references in hindsight? Where was he on bill committees in this House when that fraud was soaring and where was in this Government began where was in this Government began passing legislation to tackle that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of fraud in the benefit system. The honourable gentleman will know that as the benefit system know that as the benefit system grows, the likelihood that fraud will grow within it. But I applaud will grow within it. But I applaud all efforts to clampdown on fraud, all efforts to clampdown on fraud, and that is what I am calling for, greater efforts by the Frontbench to do that, but he knows that it is do that, but he knows that it is those on the backbenches that now call the shots, not those sitting on the Frontbench.

Ultimately, of course, all roads lead back to the course, all roads lead back to the Treasury, but the truth is that this bill is not the product of serious policy-making, nor is it its inception, or eventual outcome now, gutted as it has been by the gutted as it has been by the triumphant left. It is instead a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor that has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind but with rebellion in the rearview mirror and the result is a model, mean-spirited legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people that will suffer under it or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the honourable member and would like to get back to the would like to get back to the vulnerable people that are impacted and they will note that the devastating impact of cancer on many families and the reality of a cancer families and the reality of a cancer diagnosis, they have said that it costs, an average, £700 a month in costs, an average, £700 a month in costs and £6000 lost in annual income. Would he agree with me that income.

Would he agree with me that the current bill will ensure that these people do not get the high- grade Universal Credit health element and they would be devastated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

element and they would be devastated for many cancer patients right across the country. The honourable lady is absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers, and the need to have a system that is more generous to those that genuinely needed, but to those that genuinely needed, but is also tougher in making sure that the funding goes there to places where it is most required. Under where it is most required. Under this the Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same Britain risks a return to the same old Labour, spent today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up.

We saw it under Gordon Brown, we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another labour tax-and- spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy. The bill, in its current form, is a short-term fix with long-term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work and despite all of the protestations that came from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, it does not, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises.

If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending. Not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised the serious Government and yet here we are debating a confused, divisive ill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister's own benches. If the honourable lady wants to tell me this is not divisive and it has not been driven

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the ruptures on the backbenches I look forward to hearing from them. Thank you, madam check. The right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, madam check. The right honourable gentleman will understand that it is, for me, to understand that it is, for me, to understand what my intervention is first my intervention is to say that I was very pleased to hear them sticking very pleased to hear them sticking up for people who really need help, so which part or which clause of his amendment actually makes it better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for people who need help? The honourable lady should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud, and ensuring that this House keeps and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable because who will it be vulnerable because who will it be vulnerable because who will it be that will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? this economic spiral goes downwards? Who will it be? It will be who would always is under a Labour Government, ordinary working people and then the increasing numbers of the unemployed and vulnerable and disabled people.

and vulnerable and disabled people. They are always the ones that pay the price for a Labour Government. When the Labour Government last (in When the Labour Government last (in 2010, youth unemployment was up by 2010, youth unemployment was up by 45%. 45%. That was a record of vulnerable young people who are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment than anything else, and it is them who are always littered by the Labour Government and always let down, most of all, by the Labour Government which is not run by those with some sense of public finance control, but by backbenches who are out of control.

I will happily give way to the honourable lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And would you not agree with me that it is 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% Government that led us to a 29% disability employment, a 70% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling this poverty, and the UN telling this Government that over the first half of its decade it failed on almost every single commitment in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every single commitment in a convention on the under disabled people. Thank the honourable lady who I respect a great deal. She will be aware that the last Conservative Government saw millions of disabled Government saw millions of disabled people coming into the market. I think around two and a half, possibly as many as 3 million more possibly as many as 3 million more disabled people entering the market and having the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing.

Hard- to get our economy growing. Hard- working families involved and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and stability. I called Rachel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I called Rachel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. Loss has been overshadowed by the events of the last 48-hour is. The impacts assessment of last night shows that 2 million are still to be stripped
14:23
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
2 million are still to be stripped for up to 3 million sick and disabled people by 29 /30, through slashing the health element of Universal Credit into. I the end of this Parliament, someone will lose around £3000 per yeah because these reforms, and also those of the fluctuating conditions. If that were not bad enough, the UN human rights office of the high commission has waded into protect disabled people, where this Labour Government has not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government is now under investigation for breaches.

No matter what spin, to pass the bill tonight, this will leave such a stain on our great party, founded on values of equality and justice. That the only out is to withdraw the clauses, so that the UN Convention on the persons with disabilities are upheld. Their contention is my contention. Sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone has a fluctuating physical or mental health condition like Multiple Sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, or a recurring most musculoskeletal condition, if, following a period of remission and work, then relapse and returning to Universal Credit, and thus unequivocally stated they will return onto the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.

I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My constituents, we have some of high standing points of 17% for terms a national average, many of terms a national average, many of them get this health element. Does the honourable member agree that if they were to be stripped of they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enormous impact on their mental health which would cause a further drain on the NHS? I thank the honourable member for his intervention, but we know that when people's mental health declines when people's mental health declines because of the stresses and strains, it also pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not from the labour market, which is not the objective of pathways to work or this Government, so it would be this Government, so it would be detrimental for that person, but also to our ambition.

And that is why this sitting budget and budgets why this sitting budget and budgets of individuals with so little when of individuals with so little when we have got rising energy prices, food prices, and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling is the difference between struggling or surviving. All they could expect is poverty to fight harder, stress to spread wider, and hope to fade to spread wider, and hope to fade faster. For many, with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.

symptoms. What a way to live.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for the compassionate speech. I recently the compassionate speech. I recently knocked on the door of one of my constituents who suffers with fibromyalgia and it happened to be the day that she received a letter telling her that she was expected to open her working hours by six following an assessment. She was following an assessment. She was broken by this news and exactly the kind of mental distress the member is referring to was evident to me. Does she agree with me that whatever Does she agree with me that whatever reforms we have, they have to put compassion and care for the individual at the heart of the assessment system? So that those people, particularly with fluctuating conditions, do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience the kind of distress that I witnessed that day with my constituent? The honourable member has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member has advocated so powerfully for his constituent. But, also, all those with fluctuating conditions. You never know with a fluctuating condition if that is because of the condition if that is because of the season of the yeah, how you will fare. For some people, they may develop more chest infections over the winter, but the rest of the the winter, but the rest of the yeah, be well. And yet they would be returning on just £50, not the 97. returning on just £50, not the 97.

Or perhaps, I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or perhaps, I am happy to give way. I am grateful to her for giving way. Would she recognise how the bill protects people in the situation? Those that received situation? Those that received Universal Credit payment will be fully protected once they go into work and are likely to continue to receive this so their production will carry on, if this exceeds Universal Credit levels and there will be six months further than that level, in which if we come straight back in the start, but very strong protections.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the honourable member. This is where this gets incredibly technical, because there incredibly technical, because there cannot be an assumption that all people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all of their lives as their condition has developed, and therefore it is in the later stages of their career. Perhaps where their salary does exceed those where their salary does exceed those thresholds. And, of course, as we all know, with many of those conditions that I have listed, and conditions that I have listed, and so many more, you could have a period of remission for eight, nine, period of remission for eight, nine, even more months, and therefore you will not be able to continue with will not be able to continue with that six months support, it means you exceed that, and therefore you will be back, according to our will be back, according to our previous discussions, you will be back being seen as a new claimant back being seen as a new claimant and therefore dropped to £50, not remaining on the 97.

And that is where my amendment will come into where my amendment will come into protect those people. And, also, people with cancer, who could people with cancer, who could recover, get back to work, then the news comes, it has returned, or metastasised. You lose your job. And metastasised. You lose your job. And then are you back at £97 or £50 each week? Can you eat or can you not eat? As life, as if life was not hard enough, and then you received that shattering news, my amendment would be a remedy for those people, for as many that need this support.

But without such guarantees, I worry that with the single assessment as well, to be co-produced by the Timms Review, according to pathways to work, that a day we do not know either, whether the eligibility criteria from qualifying for the UC health element because of its association with PIP will be more or less stringent than it is right now. The bill does not say because, again, the sequencing in this bill is wrong. The cart before the horse, the vote before the review, and the only shambles of the review, the people with fluctuating conditions not knowing where they stand, and, for that, or where any of us stand by the end of today.

It is wrong to leave and disabled people with such uncertainty and, for that, my amendment would make life just that little bit more certain, but, in reality, unless clauses 2 and three go, or this bill is withdrawn, or the UN human rights High Commissioner exposes the truth, sick and disabled people will be further and disabled people will be further And as warned last night, there will be tragedy, and that's why I can't support the government today. So here we are again, no agency, no coproduction, and no idea how this tragic tale will end.

I just ask that it ends tonight on the right side of history, and through our amendment, at least for those with fluctuating conditions.
14:32
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Thank you. We are actor really interesting point -- we are at a really interesting point on this, and it feels like there's more to come. Mr chair, I would like to do as the chair of the Select Committee did and begin by thanking all of those particular Disabled People's Organisations who have worked incredibly hard and who have assisted in winning some concessions, and no matter where we end up, I think we need to be incredibly proud of the amount of work that they have put in to this, and also the fact that those disabled people who are already receiving PIP and Universal Credit have continued to fight on behalf of those future claimants for PIP and Universal Credit limited capability for work, even though they had no selfish need to do so, I think that absolutely shows the strength of the community, and the amount that disabled people care for each other.

It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in that group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour government. It should not be the case that the change that was promised by the frontbenchers is was promised by the frontbenchers is a change that firstly attacked older people by cutting their Winter Fuel Payment, has refused to take action on child, bringing forward the child strategy and now is balancing the budget by cutting money from disabled people.

This is not the Labour Party that I wrote about in my history hires, and wrote about the rise of the Labour Party and what it was founded on and the whole point about it being, supporting people and the principles on the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour government would look like. I had hopes that that would actually deliver for some people. I hope it will deliver for disabled people, for those people that the Tories have spent 14 years marginalising, and yet is choosing to make those cuts, it is choosing to make EEC cuts to disabled people.

I don't think those are easy cuts. I don't think they are the right cuts to make and I agree with my colleague who suggested there are much, much better ways to balance the budget and actually the fiscal rules are self-imposed anyway. Specifically looking at some of the issues there are in this bill, I agree with my colleague from Brighton in relation to the essentials guarantee and Amendment 39. I would say that making people purer will not magically improve the health deaf poorer.

When it comes to the coproduction, when it comes to the new course 11 on coproduction, I fully agree with the new clause and will urge that minister to take action around coproduction. For the Minister we have in Scotland created the adult disability payment. If you look on the Social Security (Scotland) Act website, it says, Social Security is a human right. Any of us at any time may need the support. We centred the decision- making around dignity, fairness and respect.

I'm not saying for a second that adult disability payment is perfect. Absolutely there are issues with every single system. But the way that was co-produced and the lessons that we learned from those coproductions are things that I would absolutely urge the Minister to look at, when he's planning the coproduction of the PIP assessments and massively concerned that when we come to the review, I'm not clear on what basis the reviews being done. What is the point of the review? I understand it is to review the PIP process but I don't understand why, what is the government aim with it? Is the aim to cut liens of pounds off the PIP payment? Is it the aim? Is the aim to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions don't have to fill in the same form over and over again explaining what it is they can't do.

Is it to reduce the number of mandatory considerations, to make the system better, centring dignity and respect, or is it to make... What is the point of that review? Some clarity from the government would be incredibly helpful. I'm sure she is familiar with the terms of reference for the Timms Review which clearly set out the purposes to make sure that the PIP assessment is fair, fit for the future, help support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence.

I hope that she will agree with me that the right honourable Stephen Timms is a very well placed as the Minister to lead this review in coproduction with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled people. It would be great to from the Dispatch Box the Minister could clarify that it is not about saving money, that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money when he goes forward with this. I when he goes forward with this. I mean, if the member is able to give a commitment on behalf the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked him to give, to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference absolutely say no do not want money absolutely say no do not want money to be saved, that is grand, but I could not find, we do not want money could not find, we do not want money to be saved.

I would like to hear the commitment from the Minister on whether or not he has been asked to whether or not he has been asked to save money, when he is doing this review. I think disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the actions of this terrified by the actions of this government, terrified by the pathways to work with, I think pathways to work with, I think should hear that from the Minister on whether or not he's trying to on whether or not he's trying to save money or whether he's putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that coproduction happens.

After questions around the severe conditions criteria. I'm severe conditions criteria. I'm concerned because the bill itself is different from what the DWP have been putting out in press releases. The DWP press releases have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible to get the severe conditions, that is what it says in DWP press releases that have been quoted in the Guardian for example, in relation to it. However, what the bill says is that have to have the condition constantly, there has to be constant application.

I think the Minister really needs to give a very explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box, because the government had decided not to have a proper committee stage in Committee where we would have this out, where we would ask questions, get this level of clarification, people are really scared about it. The Minister will understand the House been a significant number of amendments put in around this from parties across the House, concerns raised about this because what it says in the built-in schedule 1 is a descriptor constantly applies to the claimant if that descriptor applies at all times, or as the case may be on all locations on which the claimant undertakes or tends to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.

So if one of the descriptors is around being able to get yourself around, around being able to wash yourself, that clause in schedule 1, or that subsection, says it has to apply constantly. If that is not the case, a clear exhalation from the Minister about why that is not the case, about... Because the constant thing is not in the previous version that I can find, not in the previous version of the legislation apply constantly, it seems this is a new thing that has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been added. Last week at the Dispatch Box we heard from the Minister saying descriptors, activities and descriptors, activities and associated point or be subject to the Timms Review which would be co- produced with disabled people. Was she listening to that statement from she listening to that statement from the Minister except that as fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given at the Dispatch Box? The Timms Review is about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Timms Review is about personal and payment. This is about the limited cable receiver work. They are different things. I don't understand how the Timms Review could possibly cover this because could possibly cover this because the Timms Review is about Personal Independence Payment. If that descriptors, if discovered by the descriptors, if discovered by the Timms Review why is the government not removed it from the bill? Why is there not a clause in the bill right there not a clause in the bill right now removing the severe conditions criteria and that section?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. The form of words in the bill including the word constant is in fact exactly replicating the way the severe conditions criteria is applied at conditions criteria is applied at the moment. The constant refers to the moment. The constant refers to the applicability of the descriptor. So if somebody has a fluctuating condition, and perhaps on one day they are able to contribute to work, to walk 15 m, the question to put that person, by the assessor, is a new do so reliably, safely, repeatedly, in a reasonable time? If the question answer is no, the descriptor still applies to them.

The question is does that descriptor apply constantly and if it does, and the severe conditions criteria

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apply. That is what I was asking for. That will people that give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister will lot of comfort. As the Minister will be aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at. When it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the challenge in relation to the descriptors. So if people are not now asked whether they can do it on other days, whether they can not just at reliably or whether they just at reliably or whether they can, then I would expect that disabled people charities would be disabled people charities would be using that, the Minister has made at the Dispatch Box were now bringing monetary considerations or challenges to say the Minister was utterly clear that I have answered this question correctly in line with this question correctly in line with what the legislation is and I would very much encourage them to do so.

very much encourage them to do so. Because of the way the legislation is written, I will not be supporting the severe conditions criteria. I still will not be supporting the cut. I agree with colleagues who cut. I agree with colleagues who have sent 750,000 people are looking to lose money as a result of this. And this is still as my colleague And this is still as my colleague said, this is £2 billion of cuts that the Labour Party has chosen to make on disabled people, that is what it says on the impact assessment.

It is chosen to make this cut to 750,000 people and it has said, where can we make £2 million? Let's do it to disabled people. You can have conditional £2 billion of taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on this money for every day little items that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

desperately require. I thank her for giving way and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way and I completely agree with that contention will stop this is how you judge a society. How takes care of judge a society. How takes care of the most vulnerable. And as you say, it does appear on the face of it not it does appear on the face of it not to discredit anybody at all but it does appear on the face of it, the people who somebody decided to say, this is where we'll go where there this is where we'll go where there are other avenues that can be explored.

And people want us to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explored. And people want us to do that before we get into any of this. I thank her for what you say, she has been a real champion for her has been a real champion for her constituents in this and I appreciate that she is actually correct, this is not the first correct, this is not the first place, I would expect any MPs to be looking to save money. This is looking to save money. This is especially not the first place that I would be expecting supposedly progressive government to be looking progressive government to be looking to save money.

I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up disappointed that we have ended up in the situation, and unlike what the Member said, I don't think they the Member said, I don't think they are victorious faces on the backbenches. I think people on that side of the House are absolutely heart that, no matter what side of the debate you are on because they would the government front benches had not put this forward. They would they were not in a position that they were having to pick the side on this because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first manner of business.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The windup speeches will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The windup speeches will have to start at 5:30 PM. There are some 37 members standing on both some 37 members standing on both sides of the House. I'm not in a position, I'm not allowed to impose position, I'm not allowed to impose a time limit. By doing so it would be about four minutes. It is up to be about four minutes. It is up to colleagues, whether on not they choose to allow their colleagues to speak or whether they choose to take speak or whether they choose to take up more of the time, in which case it is quite clear not everybody is it is quite clear not everybody is
14:45
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
-
Gorgeous new closet which is in my name, it is teachable, do not think it is particular contentious but before I do let me just say I am still getting emails and IM still being on the bus and at committee events at that moment that people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through for my constituents that as I have always done I will not vote for any legislation which cuts the benefits, just want that underlined. Just to put in context, some of you recently saw an interview on the today program with George Osborne, the Chair of the British Museum talking about the tapestry coming to this country.

I remember when he introduced the cuts to benefits in this way before. And there is another tapestry needed to this House and it was a tapestry of the names of the people that had committed suicide. It was one of the most distressing things I have ever seen in my political life. I wept that day. And I do not want that to happen again. But I have to say, let's be honest, if cuts go through on this scale, people will lose their lives.

They will suffer intense harm. Let's all understand that. That is why the new closet, partially, is because I thought that last week in the debates people say very pompously or the best of the House and all that sort of thing but actually it was a good day for the House because people on all sides expressed their views. The Government responded, not as far as I wanted to, but the House was holding Government to account. It is not often that you see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened is because we were dealing with primary legislation, the Honourable Members could amend, debate and amend.

The reason I put the amendment forward to say that if the coverage is going to do anything it should do it on the base of primary legislation. Not delegated legislations, not committee. You did not get the chance to amend and it is often brushed through and there will be no debate whatsoever. That is so important and that is not the way that we should operate. And members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this chamber last week.

And that is why my amendment says that for prime legislation and draft forms we can all see it, so there are no bouncers anymore, do not do it in under delegated legislation because we will not have the chance to amend it and properly discuss it. That is all I am asking for and, to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it as a normal process of democracy in this chamber and I want to go back to my constituents when it comes forward and say I argued your case, forward and say I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I lost on some, one on others.

That is democracy. I support the Honourable Members notion on new clause 11 and 12, an excellent setting out of how coproduction can work. I think that is true. The only element I disagree with the honourable member on is that it moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement that we can project and they cannot move on and if they do reject it, the problem with the statement is exactly the same as the delegated legislation. You cannot amend this statement.

And I have been here so long that the Ministers bring forward a statement having thrown some good stuff in that we cannot replace, but also some bad stuff that we disagree with and if you cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result of that I think that is a result but on the element in 11 where it sets out all but should be consulted or involved or elect The Chair I think, I say this, I do not want this to sound patronising, but the honourable lady speech last week, it is not often that it brings tears to my eyes that I hear a speech in this House but the justifiable anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, I think it did the whole house, actually.

I do not want eight members standing up in five years time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not in any aggressive way, but in a constructive way, where we can debate, amend, and, hopefully, we might even be able to build consensus. And that is what this amendment is all about, that is all I wanted to say to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise primarily to speak to amendment tabled by my right honourable friend tabled by my right honourable friend the Member for Caversham and Kent, however, I would like to begin by addressing those on meds brought forward by the Secretary of State forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. When we were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill in June, then after being held over a barrel by her backbenchers, the Secretary of State
14:51
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
backbenchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then at the 11th hour of the second reading just last week amendment spoke of five and 10, were hastily drawn up. Why? To cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government can pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people that pay the price for the additional welfare spending for our constituents who get up early, work hard, and pay their bills.

New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to the fairness in the system. Key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals received their PIP payments after only attending a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill by medicalisation of conditions like OCD and anxiety. And, finally there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those that have come to the United Kingdom by any means of supporting themselves.

These are not fringe views. These are widely supported by the public. By working with men and women across the country who do the right thing and increasingly ask why are we putting a bill for a system that we no longer believe in? The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with that state. In allowing a system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels. My constituent, Nick, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope he does not mind me intervening. Just to the point he intervening. Just to the point he was making about people that come to was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Was he aware that during the pandemic, he aware that during the pandemic, for example, that people who had leave to remain were not able to avail themselves of any security avail themselves of any security support as they do not have recourse for their funds and they were left for their funds and they were left absolutely destitute.

So, as to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely destitute. So, as to suggest that happens, I hope you all withdraw that remark, because it is just not true. I have a lot of respect for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a lot of respect for the honourable lady. I would not withdraw the comment that I made because there are people in that because there are people in that situation. The social contract is situation. The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent, Nick, who works hard constituent, Nick, who works hard for the money he earns, he is the system, walk through the town centre, he asks himself what is the centre, he asks himself what is the point.

Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often do not? These amendments matter. They are not unfair, they are principled. They ensure the welfare system remains strong for those who truly need it, and therefore those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act and, unfortunately, if the Government does not support our amendments today, they will be letting them down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendment four. to new clause 11 and amendment four. The phase of this bill has transformed from second reading. I welcome the Government significant welcome the Government significant changes and hard work. I said that I could not support measures that had remained on the face of the bill remained on the face of the bill last week that would have pushed 150,000 people into poverty. Nor can I accept proposals from a point system which, under previously proposed descriptors, would exclude
14:54
Marie Tidball Portrait Dr Marie Tidball MP (Penistone and Stocksbridge, Labour)
-
-
eligibility for those that cannot put their underwear, prosthetic limbs, or shoes on without support. Towards the end of the second reading debate, the Government promised to remove clause 5 on Personal Independence Payments, including the eligibility criteria. I wholeheartedly support the amendment that achieves this today. I am pleased to hear the new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found this bill will now lift 50,000 people out of relative poverty by 2030. This matters.

Both to fulfil the government's obligations under the Equality Act and our commitment to the UN Convention on the persons with disabilities in 2016, when the UN produced its inquiry report on the UK treatment of disabled people under the Conservative Government, they said the Government, at that time, must ensure that any measures of welfare reform upholds the human rights model of disability and does not disproportionately or adversely affect rights of disabled people to live independently or access employment. Further, I will.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my honourable friend forgiving way and I do welcome the amendment. Does the honourable member a with me that coproduction needs to go beyond oversight if we needs to go beyond oversight if we want to build a trust and engagement with disabled people and their organisations? And we need to commit organisations? And we need to commit to the principles of coproduction as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the principles of coproduction as Last week. Think you would agree and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think you would agree and I will be getting to those points shortly. I think the honourable lady for her intervention. Further, the UN to voices of disabled people must be at the front and centre of this word. the front and centre of this word. In the UK must actively consult and engage with disabled people and their organisations and to give due consideration to their views on any legislation which is related to legislation which is related to these rights. Therefore, guv four is a significant step forward in removing those measures which were not consulted on.

It also events the risks I highlighted in my speech risks I highlighted in my speech last week on previously proposed eligibility criteria. Particularly eligibility criteria. Particularly on future recipient 's. I am also pleased that the Minister confirmed last week that legislation on last week that legislation on changes to eligibility and the Scriptures will not happen until the completion of the Timms Review. Which leads me to new clause 11. I am grateful for this amendment being selected. It is important to have a debate on it is improving and amendment, and, above all, I will be seeking reassurances from the despatch boxes from the Minister, that the Government will get the detail of coproduction right.

I am grateful that the measures in this amendment were co-produced, and supported, by Disability Rights UK, and by discussion through a broader group of the People's organisations and charities. New clause 11 sets out key measures to deliver on our excellent manifesto commitment to champion the rights of disabled people and the principle of working with disabled people to ensure our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Further, the measures in ANSI 11 create a strong limb between the Timms Review and fulfilling our Equality Act public sector policy duty as well as that UK commitments to that UN CRPD, including principles in article 4, three, on the need to closely consult with and actively involved disabled people.

Thus, in this context, meaningful coproduction with the disability inclusion taskforces as part of the Timms Review is essential. While the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, I will give way. Thank you for giving way. I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. I would just like to commend her for her excellent speech, both today and in excellent speech, both today and in the second reading and all the work I know she has done behind-the- scenes to get us to the place that we are today. And I fully support my we are today. And I fully support my Honourable Friends amendment which would guarantee meaningful engagement with disabled people engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP. As my right honourable friend, As my right honourable friend, sorry, as my honourable friend knows, PIP is also a gateway benefit to parents allowance, and so will to parents allowance, and so will she allow agree with me that it is essential that carers as well as disabled people are included in the disability production taskforces?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disability production taskforces? I do agree, and while the Minister will hit up this review, Minister will hit up this review, the voices of disabled people must be front and centre. The measures in this disabled people's organisations this disabled people's organisations to make up the majority of the task force and to have a significant role in the leadership of their view, and in the leadership of their view, and I believe that carers could be part of that. Output of this review also be meaningful and not performative.

be meaningful and not performative. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recommendations co- produced in the taskforces go back to this House for full scrutiny, debate, and parliamentary approval before the legislation to implement the reviews outcomes are brought forward. This will ensure democratic accountability for those outcomes, including on how changes to PIP eligibility will impact disabled people. While the new clause suggests it should be after 12 months ahead of any proposals around PIP coming out next autumn, I am aware that the Minister is keen to ensure this coproduction process is not rushed.

That is a very good approach. I am grateful to that in his closing statement at second reading the Minister acknowledged the goal to target the disability employment this is the kind of approach I know the Government will develop as they bring forward the plans for employment support. The very significant changes in this bill since last week will shift the emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential, closing the disability employment gap, and anchoring labour values of fairness anchoring labour values of fairness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of
15:01
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of Amendment two, A, amendment 38, and Amendment two, A, amendment 38, and Amendment 39, and NCH NCH. Merrill was a 57-year-old grandad and I would have footballer. His emaciated body was found in a freezing flat, no gas, electricity, food. Two tins of fish, for years out of date. He weighed 4.5 stone, and he died from starvation. He had severe social anxiety. As his daughter-in-law said, he would still be alive, he would be ill but still alive, his death was not a tragic exception.

It was a political consequence. In 2017 Jodie took her own life after missing a work test whilst she was hospitalised. Stephen Smith was denied benefits despite being gravely ill. He died in 2019. These aren't just names, they are the human costs of decisions made in this place, decisions that according to research contributed over one million premature deaths in England between 2011 and the pandemic, driven by poverty and austerity. Clause 2 of the bill will slash the Universal Credit health element, the limited credibility for work and work-related activity component from £97-£50 a week, by 2030 activity component from £97-£50 a week, by 20 33,000 annual cart for over 750 for over 750,000 herbal people by a These are people who cannot feed themselves, people who live with the gent of illnesses, people experience daily pain, confusion and incontinence and we are supposed to believe that this is about helping them into employment.

Even the government-owned figures show that you then one in 10 new claimants will be protected by the so-called severe conditions criteria. And charities like Scope, the MS Society and inclusion London have made this clear, this clause will exclude huge swathes of severely to herbal people, especially those with fluctuating progressive conditions like Multiple Sclerosis, bipolar disorder and Parkinson's. Why? Because to qualify your condition, according to the bill on paper, must affect you constantly, not severely, not overwhelmingly but constantly.

So put it feels like it's been designed to cut support not to support people. And let's not forget the requirement for an NHS diagnosis, in the middle of a backlog prices, excluding people with neurodivergent conditions and other relying on support. This is a deliberate narrowing of the safety net. The result, due to a system that punishes people for trying to work, for having variable symptoms or falling through the cracks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your kazoo. -- Falling through the cracks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bureaucracy. It excludes young people as well because their diagnosis and their condition may not automatically condition may not automatically transfer from the medical records as a child and to the adult record, so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a child and to the adult record, so they need an NHS diagnosis that needs to move from the children's. Exactly. Those are part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly. Those are part of the concerns with that aspect. Meanwhile, what is the economic Meanwhile, what is the economic There is not one, as a share of GDP There is not one, as a share of GDP working age benefits have not risen since 2015. Other countries such as France and Australia invest more in their disabled citizens and yes we do have that ensues. A 2% tax on do have that ensues. A 2% tax on extreme wealth, just 50 families in this country earn more wealth and half that UK ablation, and three half that UK ablation, and three quarters of the public according to quarters of the public according to YouGov support 80% tax on those with wealth more than £10 million.

Yet this government will not tax the superrich, instead they are choosing to take from those with arthritis, to take from those with arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, just can't decide how much suffering to inflict. And they found brilliance inflict. And they found brilliance for all, billions to raise defence spending to back endless foreign interventions, money for war but not the poor. Mr chair, the truth is, Westminster is broken, the real crisis is deeper. This is the government not out of touch but also morally bankrupt.

It works for billionaires and the distance while turning its back on disabled people. It holds its summer receptions at massive headquarters for disabled people are pushed to food banks. It impoverishes the sick and elderly to satisfy spreadsheets and then dares to speak of tough choices. But the public see through it. 81% of voters believe disabled people should receive support for basic living costs, that is not a niche opinion, that is mainstream Britain and disable organisations from Deepak to Disability Rights UK are united in their opposition because if this passes the consequences will be felt everywhere, especially in our constituency surgeries.

The emails, letters, desperation, the suffering, all of it affordable. I voted to protect Winter Fuel Payments, I would do it again. I voted to scrap the two child benefit cap, I would do it again, and I will be voting against these cuts because this isn't just about benefits, it's the country want to be. Protecting the vulnerable or punishing them. I know which side I stand on and I know I speak millions across the country when I say not going to take this any more.

The two-party state is finished, there is an intensive and we will be offering it. -- Two-party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe this bill will help address some of the difficult challenges our country faces. Many in this House are motivated by genuine desire to improve lives and ensure our welfare improve lives and ensure our welfare system is fair and fit for purpose but on this occasion I have to say, with the deepest respect, and regret, I think we have got this
15:07
Olivia Blake Portrait Olivia Blake MP (Sheffield Hallam, Labour)
-
-
regret, I think we have got this wrong. Yes the Labour government has inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and yes we need reform but we must be clear, reform cannot be pushing disabled people further into poverty, referring to cuts as modernisation, poverty has a pricetag and the cost of chanting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration. I rise to support amendment 37 in the name of the member.

Average which highlights the lack of value for money that the current contracts have when it comes to assessment. With so many reassessments and appeals that are successful, it is clear we are not getting value for money out of these contracts and they are an expensive and ineffective model that ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward and that is reflected in many of the amendments I have Eight I strongly agree with this and I think that given we have had such a lack of time to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down if the recommendations are brought back to us so that we can have good quality debates and better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility.

For those already struggling, who are at risk of struggling, who are at risk of authority. New clause 11 course for any review of PIP to be grounded in principles of the UN Convention of the rights of people with disabilities. I'm disappointed that a clause might be needed but it really points to the fact we need more transparency, independent oversight and crucially coproduction with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us and I really hope the government by listening to that amendment.

The amendment 38 tabled by my honourable And... Which can be untreatable. The amendment would ensure instead of being left runnable, the processes responsive to this and services purpose are being a safety bracket for those who need it. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise their concerns about this. With conditions like MS, Huntington's, cancer and schizophrenia, people are concerned about how these changes will impact them and I think they need to be heard in this place.

These amendments don't block reform, they strengthen it. They ensure the bill is evidence led and rooted in fairness. I would like to briefly point to new clause 12 which seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal edit. There is no shock that the opposition will use any debate for an excuse to have a game of migrant bashing, I'm very disappointed to see that this has made its way into a proposal.

But most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and Universal Credit. This restriction acts as a blanket ban on the access of social security systems to 3.6 million migrants. For those who have spent years living and working in the UK, paying taxes and have finally secured indefinite leave to remain, do we think it's acceptable to deny them access to PIP or other social security based on their nationality rather than their disability smack this amendment threatens the fundamental principle of our integration system, that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to the to remain should have access to the same rights as producers and is.

-- As British citizens. We could scrap the marriage Tax alliance that is costing us millions, a gimmick from the Cameron government. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes like the carried interest loophole which would raise £500,000, we can apply national insurance to investment, raising over £10 billion, in modest 2% adjustment to the 207 billion handed out in nonstructural and nontax release would raise £4 billion each and every year, and had struck about those reliefs. There are roughly 1180 tax reliefs in the UK, 815 HMRC has no idea what UK, 815 HMRC has no idea what benefits they bring to the public.

And these are about choices, and we hear all the time it's about tough choices. But why are we not choosing to properly examine the £200 million of public spending while we are tightening support for disabled people were just trying to live. We can and should...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable lady, and as ever she makes a very lady, and as ever she makes a very passionate case. Would she agree passionate case. Would she agree with me that in essence, the principal objection that many of us had against this bill still remains, had against this bill still remains, because it is still balancing the books on some of the most vulnerable. It will still bring poverty and therefore the best option for the government, that this bill must be withdrawn.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill must be withdrawn. I do agree and that is my Peter the frontbench, there is still time to withdraw the bill, and come back with something better. These issues should be tackled head on. It is unjust that because we have got a unjust that because we have got a society that we have, it costs an average thousand extra pounds a- month each and every disabled on month each and every disabled on average. And none of this is optional spending, it's the unavoidable price of navigating that society, which was not designed for disabled people in mind, and there's disabled people in mind, and there's a whole host of reasons why that spending occurs.

These are not negotiable, these are nonnegotiable negotiable, these are nonnegotiable realities of having it as ability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen to us. Are nonnegotiable realities that you must have economic growth, if you're going to be able to fulfil you're going to be able to fulfil your priorities for government, whether looking after the poor, disabled or any other priority and yet this government has got yet this government has got inflation nearly doubled, the unemployment bill, the jobs tax, unemployment bill, the jobs tax, other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can members opposite not understand that if you opposite not understand that if you don't prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, you will never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and economic growth, you will never be able to serve those who are most fungible and depend on that growth most. I thank him for interaction me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for interaction me there because there were two points that I have suggested that I think that I have suggested that I think would be good to look into growth. The first would be to give the The first would be to give the British investment bank the same standing as it does to investing in women and minority and ask that they women and minority and ask that they actually support disabled people where they are able to set up their own businesses.

I know many ADHD who own businesses. I know many ADHD who would make great entrepreneurs, unfortunately sometimes the end up down the path of commonality and that is something I think we should that is something I think we should be looking out, and how we can make sure that people's innovation is enhanced and used properly. The second would be to look at ways we can make our economy much more inclusive, for example giving a national insurance contributions discount for a period of time, for taking someone on whom a habitability, maybe in receipt of PIP who may have been out of work for more than six months.

There is some sort of arrangement that would encourage growth, not discourage growth, by having a more inclusive society. Have taken far too much time, but I want to end with this. Disabled people know what's best for us. We should be investing in people's independence, not leaving them at the sidelines, not pushing them into poverty, it is a matter of justice and in the end it saves money, too, but one that it gives people dignity and freedom to live well and that, surely, should the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support amongst others
15:16
Ann Davies Portrait Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support amongst others clause 8, 11, 12, 38 and 39. And others as I go through my speech. I promise to keep within the four promise to keep within the four minutes and official timeline. Week after the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Personal Independence Payment Bill it is arbitrary eligibility cut-offs it is arbitrary eligibility cut-offs being first discussed. We are today being asked to amend and pass this deeply flawed bill in a couple of deeply flawed bill in a couple of hours.

Of course, it is now a completely different build on it was completely different build on it was the first time it was put forward, and even the title will be changed. and even the title will be changed. I am not alone in the removal of clause 5 of the bill, meaning no person will lose vital Personal Independence Payment so that this Government can save some money. However, like other Honourable Members, I do not believe the UK government's concessions make this government's concessions make this bill now worthy of the legislation.

But the Government has conceded that But the Government has conceded that placing an arbitrary cut-off date for eligibility is unsupportable. Why on earth does it continue to do Why on earth does it continue to do exactly that for payments of the health element of Universal Credit. health element of Universal Credit. I commend the honourable member for his amendment which calls to continue the level of Universal Credit health element at £423.27 p for all new claimants. Further than lowering the country for those lowering the country for those unlucky enough to require that support after 2026.

Because this measure alone will cause hardships once again. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that without further changes over 700,000 disabled would still face a cut to their income of up to £3000 per year by 2030. So, we do not know the data that has informed this approach, nor that has informed this approach, nor the impacts for people in Wales. An assessment of the specific impact on Wales has been necessary since the UK Government first announced this months ago and other plans have changed considerably.

That impact assessment is all the more crucial. People in Wales need transparency and certainty about how these changes will affect their lives. And in which functioning democracy does the Government build that fundamentally opted in the middle of the first debate on that very bill and elected representatives given a few hours to scrutinise it before it has passed. We need time to fully scrutinise and effectively scrutinise this bill. We need time to coproduce it with the constituents whose life this affects.

And this is a chaotic and shameful state of affairs, especially considering the substantial impact this bill will have on thousands of disabled people on the lowest incomes. If you do not mind, I am keeping to my four-minute timeline. This bill should be scrapped, it is not fair, nor is it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents. I will speak this afternoon to
15:20
Graeme Downie Portrait Graeme Downie MP (Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak this afternoon to amendment 17 in my name supported by 62 members from across the House. We are natural whether or not the are natural whether or not the person has the condition such as Parkinson's or MS and would be considered as a factor in receiving the claimant criteria. We have been working with Parkinson's UK and I have heard concerns from those living with the condition and their carers and family about the problems they already face in accessing the welfare support because of some fundamental supports and the fundamental nature of the condition.

These are the concerns that are exacerbated by the bill and schedule one which says that severe conditions and the criteria and one of the descriptors constantly applies. Someone with Parkinson's or MS, ME, or other conditions may be able to carry out district such as walking for 50 m in the morning but not be able to do so by the afternoon. In my initial reading for the legislation, that means that some with Parkinson's inevitably it is it criteria claimant because they're not be able to get the descriptor constantly.

Mr Chair, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for the extensive engagement they have had with me on this matter and the language used in the bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson's. As the Minister has said, prior to discussion today, much of the explanation I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the descriptor repeatedly and safely and if they cannot then the criteria will be applied constantly as there will be considered a serious criteria claimant.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank him very much for the work that he has done in very helpfully highlighting this? I think helpfully highlighting this? I think very briefly to the current training very briefly to the current training material to the point the level of material to the point the level of function will always meet, so although this criteria refers to a number of functions that will always meet this does not, in anywhere, exclude people diagnosed with a exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.

The key issue is that this is not subject to such variability that this would ever be variability that this would ever be significantly improved. I help that my earlier intervention gives some reassurance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and can I thank the Minister for his intervention? I think that will provide an extensive amount of reassurance and other amount of reassurance and other conditions as well. I do somewhat as conditions as well. I do somewhat as a watching brief on this as this progresses because I am aware that Parkinson's UK have just today Parkinson's UK have just today received their own advice ensuring that the application of this might not be quite as clear as the Minister intense.

And I would say that my other concern comes around perhaps the overdue burden that this places on the guidance as well as perhaps the unfair position it puts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the assessor in that could lead to application of the guidance. I think my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my honourable friend for giving way. My father-in-law died from Parkinson's to under half weeks ago, so this is both very personal ago, so this is both very personal issue for me and family and also where they are concerned about the where they are concerned about the lack of clarity and I wanted just to outline support to his calls for outline support to his calls for clarity and most grateful for the Ministers intervention, we need to make sure that we get this right and we get it right soon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

we get it right soon. I thank my honourable friend for his intervention and the thoughts from this House and his family. I know how challenging a time it has know how challenging a time it has been and the fact he has been able to carry on his duties to represent his constituencies is to his credit and something that they would be and something that they would be very proud of as well. As I say, the very proud of as well.

As I say, the Minister has been very grateful and I do not believe for a moment it is his intention to restrict access to his intention to restrict access to the criteria for those with Parkinson's and those from the Dispatch Box are, indeed, incredibly Dispatch Box are, indeed, incredibly helpful. I would, however, just ask him to continue to make sure he keeps a close eye on the situation to make sure that the application. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But can I just look at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But can I just look at the guidance that is subject to change, it is not contained anywhere within it is not contained anywhere within the bill or the amendments, so the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance is of the House. I thank the honourable member for his intervention. Again, to my very his intervention. Again, to my very hopeful conversations with the Minister understand this has taken Minister understand this has taken existence guidance and appointed to law, however, I do understand his concern, and actually my final point before I close my remarks is to ask before I close my remarks is to ask the Minister to keep this under active review, and if there is any active review, and if there is any new evidence that comes to life that new evidence that comes to life that ensures that legislation is acting as a barrier to ensuring the Government actual position is being reflected in reality that he will consider opportunities to make sure that is corrected in due course.

We all really hope to see the government's clear intentions that people with Parkinson's, I unhappy to take one final intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to take one final intervention. Thank you to the Member for taking a further intervention. And also as a signatory to his amendment I wondered whether his discussions with the Minister have indicated with the Minister have indicated whether someone that has a condition like relapsing and remitting MS were long periods of time can be spent being perfectly healthy, it would, but then other periods when a crisis occurs and the person is quite debilitated by their condition, whether the provisions that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister describes will be sympathetic to those sorts of situations. I thank my honourable friend for her intervention. She will know that her intervention. She will know that her and I have a shared front that her and I have a shared front that has suffered with MS and I think it is one of those conditions where we need to make sure there is a clear need to make sure there is a clear understanding of the reality of those conditions on the ground when that is being delivered, in reality, by assessors, that those people absolutely are able to access this additional support.

I think that we additional support. I think that we all need. I would just finally close by saying that we all know that by saying that we all know that welfare reforms are undoubtedly needed after the miss of the system we were left with by the previous Government and wherever possible we Government and wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of our legislation is as clear as possible to make sure that those affected are absolutely no doubt to what our absolutely no doubt to what our intent is that it is indisputable and we are truly giving effect to what the intentions of the what the intentions of the legislation are and want to thank her for that incredibly helpful intervention, but we will also make sure that the reality does reflect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Government excellent intentions. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Advice to
15:26
15:28
15:28
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
first hand from myself as an employer with people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen, and left, is simple. The current proposals risk The current proposals risk acceptable consequences to those that are already among the most that are already among the most vulnerable. The Government definition of conditions hinges on the ward constantly. A single word the ward constantly. A single word of dubious political value, I do however, appreciate the clarification that we have had two clarification that we have had two previous members, however, it is very late in the day to be getting very late in the day to be getting this kind of important information.

Conditions like ME Massey FS MS Conditions like ME Massey FS MS epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable, they fluctuate. And unpredictable, they fluctuate. And yet this bill could exclude many of these individuals from vital these individuals from vital support, simply because the symptoms do not comply with the Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that their assessment system respects the United Kingdom's obligations under the UN Convention obligations under the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

This affirms the principle of non-retrogression, that they do not rollback hard-won they do not rollback hard-won points. It insists that we take episodic condition seriously and protects people from falling through the cracks. This bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament and, at this point, the most obvious course of action would be simply to put it all together and be simply to put it all together and start again. I realise the political difficulties that this may involve, however, there are vulnerable people's lives at stake.

When the people's lives at stake. When the Government does come to look again at some of the deleted clauses of the Timms Review, it is essential to approach the issue from a needs first angle, not how much can I save angle. Certainly cutting to the past actions do more than they save. I accept that the Government does not have infinite funds, but what we saw with the proposal was an arbitrary change in eligibility with a crude objective making a predetermined saving.

It has all been the wrong way round which we have to understand needs first and only then can we consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them. We also need, I will give way to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be grateful to the honourable gentleman forgivingly on that point. Does he recognise that the concessions that the Government the concessions that the Government have brought forward and the amendments before us today are, amendments before us today are, indeed, making sure that we are getting it the right way around? So, in the terms of reference, it is in the terms of reference, it is very clear that it is about a fair and fit for the future assessment rather than to generate proposals for future savings.

It is extremely explicit in the terms of reference. Will he agree with me that the bill before us today does allow us to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before us today does allow us to get the Timms Review done and then bring forward proposals on that act? Thank the honourable member for her intervention and for that, I her intervention and for that, I cannot agree, but I will partly explain why in a moment. We also need a more honest assessment of the financial situation which has been financial situation which has been used to justify this drastic cut because the wrong diagnosis leads to because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions.

The dramatic use in PIP payments is at least partly driven by other Government partly driven by other Government policy. Perhaps one quarter of the rises due to simply raising the rises due to simply raising the pension age. Large number of people more likely to be disabled are being more likely to be disabled are being pushed out of pension support into benefits above. The State Pension and current taxation past contributions, so the impact is immediate. From that state point of view, this which is cost neutral.

In fact, since state pensions are usually much higher than PIP payments, perhaps double, then the state is not interested in saving. We also consider other factors such as increasing NHS waiting-list post COVID, then it is clear that the rise of demand, while still significant, worrying, and worthy of significant, worrying, and worthy of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He mentioned the NHS and the waiting lists does he share my waiting lists does he share my concern about the criteria and the diagnosis needing to be made by an NHS professional in the course of NHS professional in the course of their duties people may not have access to that, and also the requirement for the condition to be considered lifelong, NHS professionals are unlikely to say that conditions like schizophrenia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar are lifelong because they don't want to tie people down to that? I very much agree, that is an additional concern. The implication has been by both this government and the previous ones that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people exaggerating chasing and people exaggerating additions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. All these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the bill now make a fresh to pull the bill now make a fresh start.

Denying adequate support today only shift the burden tomorrow to social care, to emergency services, to our already overstretched NHS. We have been overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once but three times in our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

36 is a chance to show we are listening. Thank you. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today particularly those that call for
15:32
Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle MP (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Labour)
-
-
delays to legislation. I think we are one year into our five year term, 20% of this parliament is gone, and the public needs to see progress not further delay. I am mindful that ministers have done a huge amount already to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. We shall recall that in July last year, the Department of Work and Pensions was under formal investigation from the equality Human Rights Commission for unlawful treatment of disabled people.

I think this government has made considerable progress since then in trying to rebuild trust, including through measures in this bill and linked to this bill like abolishing the Work Capability Assessment. I have been here 10 years, some say it might feel longer, but I campaigned as chair of the disability benefits Consortium before entering this place to abolish the Work Capability Assessment. I know that disabled people and organisations are very much grateful and I am thankful for their support for that measure being included in that wider package the government is bringing forward.

I'm also mindful, it seems to have been lost in some of the debate on this, that in my constituency, claimant of Personal Independence Payment will rise in this parliament, and the spending on their support will continue to rise this parliament. And that the 12,700 Universal Credit claimants in my community will get an additional payment under this government's plans. The first-ever above inflation rise on Universal Credit. There is much to gain and much to support by disabled people and organisations in the package the government has brought forward.

I welcome the plans to support more disabled people into work. We need to challenge ourselves a little more in this place about some of the language of vulnerability. Vulnerability and being automatically vulnerable because of having a health condition is not in line with the disability. It is something that disabled people find patronising and offensive. We need to update our system, just as we updated our system thanks to a previous Labour government when we had the first ever blind Secretary of State in David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett, at the time of the benefits system said blind people were not required to participate in work-related activity.

The benefits system is not a static beast. It is an evolving creature that needs to be updated to reflect the changes in medication, assistive technology, changes in medication and advances in technology. We must not end up with a system where people are written off, where people are parked in a system because it is too difficult to get them into work. That is not a labour solution. We are the party of full employment. Full employment must and should include disabled people, if we are permitted to disability equality and every other part of your progress.

Can I ship in that this party takes no lectures on what is progressive from Nationalists, whether it be Scottish nationalists or the populists in the Reform party. Because we see the costs to disabled Because we see the costs to disabled people of the former benefits system was the longer you are out of work for more ill-health you have, truly mental health and depression, and the more cost you incur for the NHS was not there are state benefits but individual benefits with getting the right support.

I speak from a rather too much personal family extras. My mother is schizophrenic and I father had a stroke in his 40s. They said we do not want to see you or provide you with anything. He found his own way back into work through going to university as a mature student, to Newcastle University and graduating in the same year. The wider picture of full employment is something we should look at. I particularly welcome the government's broader aim of reducing the disability employment gap.

This was something neglected for 14 years. And that transformation of Jobcentre for a benefits administration centre that has been failing not because of a lack of will frontline staff, some of whom are steadily excellent, but simply because of the job they were given to bring about supporting people into work to administering a failing system that as we were discussing earlier had the highest fraud levels ever seen in the UK social security system. Most of us I don't think do believe that disability policy is measured in the amount of benefits individuals receive but in the shared opportunities and access to life chances that are available to all our country.

That is something that I am deeply mindful of because, whilst we had the lost generation under the 14 years of Conservative and LibDem coalition government, we had a previous government that was deeply committed to these issues and published a report called improving the life chances of disabled people 20 years ago today, with an implementation delivery day that was meant to provide those equal access by 2025. It is sadly the coalition and Conservative years that have set back the clock.

This is a report that is still available that talks about Pathways to work and dedicated employment programs like the new Deal for disabled people. Programs have been largely demolished by the coalition. It talks about the importance of the role of the NHS, GPs, occupational health and rehab. The Labour government now fixing the wider NHS problems to make those aims and objectives to the reforms today. The prime minister and government are committed to rebuilding the system to contribute rather than writing people off.

It is something that this government has had to come back to after a lost decade. And a report 20 years ago that talks about the necessity of a better equipment system, and the need to improve access to workforce it is something ministers are committed to today beginning to transform with faster assessment processes and delivery as needed. And the report talks about the importance of engaging with employers and the positive role of Jobcentre Plus can play in engaging employers early in the process.

Sadly we have seen such a long delay in delivering those improved life chances but this is a Labor Party in government, back trying to deliver for disabled people and improve life chances will stop the measures in this bill are integral to that aim. I'm concerned about some of the amendments before us. I also have some concerns that we need to go further around tackling barriers to work for disabled people. Benefits structure including support of accommodation, it is great that we have the right to try but more is necessary.

Meet go further around reasonable adjustments and making sure employers do not accept the resignations based on ill-health immediately but look at the package of support that might be needed including looking at what is needed to tackle discrimination was not in working with the FSP would be useful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I call the next speaker, could I remind all members that this is the Committee stage, and we could is the Committee stage, and we could have some focus on the amendments have some focus on the amendments that we are debating this afternoon not wide-ranging third reading speeches because at this rate there will be very little time for third reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I
15:40
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today to speak to amendments, and new clauses 8, 10, and 11. Without going into 1/3 reading speech, I think it is important to highlight that we are debating a bill which will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on the thousands of families across our country. As that Resolution Foundation puts it, " This bill represents an income shop for millions of low income households, " the areas hardest hit are the very communities this government claims to support.

Cases in the North of England, in Wales, during my own region of Yorkshire, proud working- class areas being failed by a government, and tightening the purse strings on the most honourable. In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim Personal Independence Payment. I have had over 150 Constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. These are not just numbers, they are real people with real needs. The Universal Credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country.

One of my constituents, Andrew, ran a business before 2020. Covid left him with long-term walking damage was not good belly walk 10 m. His PIP payments became a lifeline, cutting support like this is not about trimming fat it is cutting people's dignity and survival. Over 20 civil society organisations wrote to MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the government amendments, and the change that was introduced in the previous debate last week, to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms Review was concluded.

It still leaves people concerned and in severe distress. Clause two, as it stands in the bill today, would leave, as we have heard, 750,000 people according to the government impact assessment, up the government impact assessment, up to up to £303,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit have already used a foodbank in the last month. This will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2A tabled by my honourable friend, to maintain the current Universal Credit health element.

This cut will hit people with mental health conditions, who are already struggling to access support. Many members across the house have spoken in support of the other amendments, and I also support and I won't repeat the eloquent and informed speeches and points made. To conclude Madam chair, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year Parliament is to see a process for an absolutely critical bill that will impact millions of people in our country, to be rushed through the legislative process, in a way that did not allow the relevant time to understand, to amend, and to approve the bill, so it was fit for purpose.

This process, I am sorry to say, has been a legislative mess. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I want to make a general point. He points out that the process feels rushed. But the process feels rushed. But sitting here, I do observe there is sitting here, I do observe there is not a demand for people to speak on any opposition benches. We have two any opposition benches. We have two Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs, no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs, no reform MPs. What the he make of it? I thank him for his intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his intervention. I am not able to comment on people who he refers to as absent. I am who he refers to as absent. I am here representing my colleagues who here representing my colleagues who all strongly oppose this bill. The way it is presented here today, it way it is presented here today, it will adversely impact millions of people in our country, the people at people in our country, the people at the bottom of the food chain, the people who are struggling to feed their children, heat their homes, get to work, and get to appointments that are critical for the treatments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to manage their conditions. I thank him for giving way. He talks about the difficulties talks about the difficulties disabled people face. Of course many millions of them are supported by family members, unpaid carers. Does he agree with me that although the government has said they will work with disability groups and people who have disabilities, they also need to coproduce whatever comes forward in conjunction with carers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree and reiterate the earlier point that the Timms review must not point that the Timms review must not only include disabled people, disabled people of all ages, and disabled people of all ages, and disabled people of all ages, and . I said this could cut £500 from carers allowance, the largest cut since it was introduced in 1967. We since it was introduced in 1967. We would urge the government to maintain the holistic view of the maintain the holistic view of the changes and the impact that they will have.

To conclude, the process will have. To conclude, the process of this bill, despite objections from members opposite, has been a legislative mess. Last week and the legislative mess. Last week and the amendments today which got to the amendments today which got to the bill but focused on changes to UC, and the last-minute changes, the and the last-minute changes, the lack of accountability. Disability is not a choice. The bill is not just bad policy but a betrayal and I would urge every member of the House to reject it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was keen to speak and share my experiences of the current welfare system and explain why I'm system and explain why I'm supporting a number of the
15:47
Terry Jermy Portrait Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)
-
-
supporting a number of the amendments. My father worked hard from the day he left school at 15 wrote the way through to 55. He was an engineer could pay tax, contributed to society, and never looked for help from anyone throughout his life and was proud of the work ethic he stood for. Then he had a life altering stroke in August and lost the complete use of his left leg and left arm. His hand was always in a tight fist and speech and memory became difficult.

Despite working for the same engineering company for more than 20 years, his employment contract offered little parental support and within a few weeks she was struggling to make ends meet on statutory sick pay and as a family but never heard of PIP, universal credit. My dad did not want to apply but we had no choice because of financial realities. We fund the welfare system difficult to access, confusing, incredibly slow, and at all times it was frustrating and, frankly, dehumanising.

We spent months going through the PIP application process all file no financial support was forthcoming. It was tough. My parents were supported by the fed, borrowed money, got into debt. -- The food bank. He had paid into the system for so long and had to fight against it and then he died. He struggled to get a GP appointment in January 2023, was placed into a medically induced coma and never recovered. Like many others, he was let down by the welfare system which was supposed to care for him and by the NHS at the end of his life.

Given my background perhaps you can understand why iPhone supporting some of the initial proposals in the bill difficult. I've seen first-hand how the debate and rhetoric here impacts my own family and our constituents, particularly with regard to mental health. It's important we recognise that so often disabled people feel like they are broken and that others think that the disability has been in some way manufactured. Disabled people are not a burden. It is our privilege to support them. It has been said of late that the Labour Party is the party of work.

Indeed it is. Through that work and labour, we have the responsibility and duty to help others. It is important these values are reflected in any proposals and that is why I have supported the amendments tabled by my honourable To ensure this value set in train. I agree we should do more to support disabled people into work. There are obvious areas, particularly in rural areas with limited transport options and fewer suitable work opportunities. We should be doing that but not at the expense of changing rules and making eligibility difficult.

Public services are broken with many honourable friend articulating how bad things are. 14 years of Conservative failure. It should be no surprise welfare claims are rising and it is the statistical inevitability of the state of the country and for the hours I spent advocating on behalf of my dad at DWP appointments, medical assessments, work capability assessments, I would think about the people who do not have someone to fight on their behalf and wonder what hope they have.

Navigating the system was bad enough for our family so what must it be like for others? We all have the responsibility to be advocates for people who do not have a voice. To reduce the welfare bill, and I'm sure we all want to, we do so by fixing broken systems. Millions of people are on NHS waiting list with many wanting to work and not receiving the trick that they need to enable them to do so. -- The treatment. The government is making progress on the healthcare system and we need to give this time.

The welfare system is slow, expensive, inefficient, riddled with private profit taking, reforms that reduce costs. Disabled people have suffered disproportionately for years and this country. Austerity and the last government ruined lives and people longed for a changed narrative with Labour and voted for that last July. If we want to move forward as a country, it must be together, and that includes disabled people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand that this point has been made but there are 23 colleagues waiting to speak and roughly 88 minutes left. I will
15:53
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
roughly 88 minutes left. I will allow colleagues to make the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions in terms of how long they wish to speak for. It is difficult to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is difficult to follow the honourable member and we welcome his authenticity. I rise to support clause 5 which is supported in both inland and coastal communities and would require the government within six months of its implementation to six months of its implementation to publish an impact report for coastal communities like mine. It's important because they built it up a huge impact on these communities and I'm concerned the government has I'm concerned the government has once again failed to consider coastal communities in the policy.

coastal communities in the policy. I've heard from many of my constituents and I am sure this is true across the House from other colleagues from postal constituencies and we all know our areas are often not valued and my amendment would ensure the amendment would ensure the government would have to take real accountability for how these areas are harmed by changes which are are harmed by changes which are badly thought out. As it stands, even with the amendments, the bill would be damaging to the coastal regions and some of the highest regions and some of the highest rates of PIP are in coastal communities, the same with unemployment.

Consistently above average rates of sickness, poor health, and these issues are finding coastal community. If the government presses ahead with the blunt changes without supporting people into work first, it could be catastrophic for people around the coastline. For those eager to get into work, they are faced with a litany of barriers to government is not doing enough to solve and we have issues with public transport access and for many accessing inland employment, it is to far too hard and they are disproportionately financially affected.

Many have to turn down job offers due to problems with transport and is more acute with young people and employers and young people are three times more likely to turn down a job than all the people who turned down a job because they cannot get a bit. There are issues with vocational training which could be a new route but is not accessible for many due to the distances required of the lack of workforce to provide the training. Many talented people may be in receipt of PIP are Universal Credit and would be keen to work but in communities like mine the system is not working.

It is clear it is not working but we must stop looking at it as only numbers on the balance sheet because that just means they look at ways of getting to a magic number and ignore the people behind the numbers. There is the urgent need to tackle unemployment and in particular the rise of young people with poor mental health being sent this to a lifetime of not having work. People in coastal communities like mine are three times more likely to suffer from undiagnosed distress than colleagues in inland

**** Possible New Speaker ****

areas. My constituency is not coastal but it feels like it once a year. The member does share a number of The member does share a number of areas with my constituency and I will be voting against the bill will be voting against the bill later because it does not provide means to get people back into work and transport is one of the most significant barriers and I hope he agrees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agrees. I completely agree that the barrier must be addressed at the barrier must be addressed at the business case is clear and easy to see. The government should focus on supporting employment opportunities in coastal communities and investing in tourism and hospitality and supporting training and development and fixing the broken system. Many and fixing the broken system. Many of these challenges might have been raised earlier if there was a raised earlier if there was a minister in government who could speak up for coastal communities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

speak up for coastal communities. The honourable member speaks with passion about coastal communities passion about coastal communities and I sure that because I also represent a coastal community. I'm pleased that some barriers that he has highlighted are being addressed in my coastal community through the work being done which is now being chosen as a trailblazer. Transport is one of them and the organisation will break down the transport barriers and find routes, ways for people to get to work, and pay for the transport as well.

That is something that the trailblazers are looking to roll out around the country. Does he agree that things could be done to overcome the barriers, including in coastal communities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I look forward to the shareable case study when it is available and things can be done, are being done, and we have to do them in every and we have to do them in every coastal community around the country. I hope the government accepts my amendment to assess our accepts my amendment to assess our areas like ours will be affected by the proposals but I would like to the proposals but I would like to scrap the badly designed changes, go back to the drawing board, and capital from that bill reform and capital from that bill reform and not punish coastal communities.
15:59
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

not punish coastal communities. I rise not just with a heavy heart but she is disappointment and despite the concessions of last week, the bill remains dangerous to disabled people and it is economically reckless. But you take away support, shift the cost onto the NHS, local authorities, unpaid carers, working-class communities. Despite concessions which have been hard-won, the bill remains an assault on disabled people. It is a strategy for inclusion in support but slashes funding and support from those who need it most.

And according to the government's own impact assessment, it will mean £2 billion of cuts, set to affect 700,000 future recipients of Universal Credit by an average of £3000 each year by 2030 and the bill would push 50,000 people into poverty and will be disastrous for people already living in poverty. I was not elected as a Labour MP to take money out of the pockets of the most poor and vulnerable and I'm most poor and vulnerable and I'm proud to support I meant 2A, which would uphold rates on the convention of the rates for disabled persons and the amendments which would mandate human rights analysis.

These amendments would mitigate the worst elements of the deeply misguided Bill and I stand with every major disability rights organisation to disability rights organisation to This This bill This bill will This bill will devastate This bill will devastate communities like mine where already 40% of our working-age population rely on sickness and disability benefits to live on with dignity. I have constituents contacting me daily expressing fear, anger, and despair. I hear from carers facing destitution, disabled people terrified about losing their last shred of financial independence.

These are people making impossible choices between heating and eating, between rent and medication. Disabled people feel vilified, dismissed, and forgotten. Their voices have been ignored at every stage of the process. There has been no proper consultation, no coproduction, or scrutiny, no compassion, no respect. If ministers truly wanted to fund a better social security system, they could introduce a fair wealth tax, clamp down on tax avoidance, levee banks and gaming, or invest in inclusive employment support. This is not employment support.

This is not reform, it is a sadistic and cruel cost-cutting exercise, a betrayal everything that we as Labour politicians claim to stand for. I will not stand by while this government strips away dignity, security, and hope for the people I represent. It is not only me, it is other MPs that believe this. The UN is also calling for the UK to pull this bill because " It will deepen regression in disabled people's human rights. " I will vote against the bill today because my constituents deserve better.

Disabled people across the country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserve better, and the government needs to do better for disabled people. Thank you. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I
16:03
Adam Dance Portrait Adam Dance MP (Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak in favour of amendment 12, 13, 17, and the Liberal Democrat new clauses two, six, seven. This bill has been a shambles from the start. No consultation with disabled people and last-minute chopping and changing the Timms Review and removal of PIP is welcome, the process to get there has left disabled people in Yeovil fearful with little confidence in this government. My constituent, Noel, has been unable to work due to a condition and received Universal Credit and has been left deeply distressed by the process.

He visits my office almost daily for support. He is not alone. So many people in Yeovil have made it clear that these proposals are just unfair. The whole point of this bill as far as I can tell was to get people back into meaningful work and lower the welfare bill. It is something I think we all want to see. At no stage has this bill actually tackled the real issue that will help get people back into meaningful work, addressing the crisis in NHS and social care system, and growing clinical health initiatives.

Under the original profile, I had constituents who do not know what effects the bill will have on their constituents. I'm concerned that the criteria for the higher rate health element of Universal Credit will effectively include people with Parkinson's and conditions like MS. So I urge colleagues to support amendment 17 to address this. The original bill was meant to say £5.5 million. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts the amended version will deliver basically no savings over four years.

Because over the period the forecast savings reducing Universal Credit health element will be offset or excluded by the cost of increasing the UC as a standard allowance. So what is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point of this bill? I thank my neighbour for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my neighbour for giving way. He will note given his constituency is extremely rural like mine that the cost of delivering services in rural areas are significantly higher than in urban significantly higher than in urban areas. And a lot of what PIP does is allow people to live independently. allow people to live independently. Both he and I are looking at ICBs under extreme financial pressure. We under extreme financial pressure. We will end up paying for this one way or another.

We might as well give people the independence to live freely. freely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

freely. We are going to see ICBs him to make a 50% cut. We are seeing that impact coming in in the oval constituency with the maternity unit constituency with the maternity unit constituency with the maternity unit having its funding cut. Lots of the having its funding cut. Lots of the content has been removed. There is no impact assessment and it is not likely to make any real savings. What this tells me is the government has to go back to the drawing board, it has to withdraw this bill now or if it won't, the government should if it won't, the government should adopt the Liberal Democrat amendment and new clauses.

It would require proper consultation and impact assessment before the bill can come into force. Either way, the government must stop making decisions about disabled people without them. I would like to thank some of the Labour backbenchers for having the backbone and voting against your government for supporting disabled people. I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you do that again today. Thank you. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to speak to disagree with the
16:07
Liam Conlon Portrait Liam Conlon MP (Beckenham and Penge, Labour)
-
-
stand to speak to disagree with the opposition amendment and new clause 12. This amendment would block indefinitely things in this bill. I want to talk today not only as the MP for Beckenham and Penge but from personal experience as one of the few MPs in this House who has been a recipient of the higher rates of Disability Living Allowance, Motability allowance, and someone who relied on a Motability car throughout my teenage years, as to other provisions in this bill are so welcome and the damage this amendment, this Conservative amendment would do to it.

The first thing I want to say today is this legislation and wider debates were having does not exist in a vacuum. It cannot be separated from the impact of over a decade of savage cuts to NHS and community care services. Those cuts have led to what one NHS manager describes as mediaeval levels of untreated illness. In poorer parts of the country particular, communique has been decimated, and A&E attendances have almost doubled since 2010. We are now a country with the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe.

One of the highest rates of preventable deaths among rich countries, one of the lowest levels of neighbourhood nurses and GPs per head than in other wealthy nations. The dismantling of preventative care has not only brought our NHS to the brink, but it has done more than anything else to drive the increase in the numbers of people on health- related benefits and the numbers who are disabled that we are discussing today. That is something I speak to from personal experience. When I was 13, I had an accident in which I shattered my right hip.

It left me unable to walk for four years, and I needed only 10 major operations on the NHS at the Royal London Hospital and the National Orthopaedic Hospital. As 1/6 former, I became one of the youngest people in the country to have a hip replacement. When I had my first hip replacement in the 2000 under a Labour government, the average waiting time for a hip replacement in Britain was under nine weeks. Thanks to the staff at the National Orthopaedic Hospital, was seen even quicker.

I then received excellent rehabilitation care with hydrotherapy every other day. But after 14 years of Conservative government, the waiting list for a hip replacement had travelled from nine weeks to 27 weeks. From two months to over six months. It is not uncommon in Britain today to wait up to two is for a hip replacement and rehabilitation services are non- existent. This is replicated with other treatments. Example, the other treatments. Example, the Nuffield Trust known as the respiratory medicine services saw an increase in waiting times of nearly 300% under the last government.

The ballooning of NHS waiting lists and the lists of people on health- related benefits go hand-in-hand. So we cannot divorce progress on the issues we are discussing today from progress on the NHS. We are already seeing great strides with record investment from this government in our NHS which has led to being on track for 92% of patients who wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. An investment in rehabilitation services like hydrotherapy which are absolutely essential.

We must also understand this debate in the context of cuts to other community and preventative services. Including programs like Sure Start. I was proud to have had the opportunity to work for Tessa Jowell, the woman who created Sure Start under the last Labour government. She understood the importance of a child's first 1000 days, and design Sure Start as an early intervention program which had a significant positive impact on the long-term outcomes for hundreds of thousands of families and children in this country.

It was savagely cut by the last government, the most shortsighted and cruel things they did over 14 years. It has led to increased hospital admissions and evidence shows that young people with access to Sure Start were more likely to be in very good or excellent health. Alongside all of this investment, and the great progress this government is making on health, we need to reform the DWP and the systems around health- related benefits in this country. That is why opposing new clause 12 and it is so important.

I want to touch on what happens when you have had medical treatments are looking to get back into the world of work on the principle of the right to try contained in this bill. This is the part of the bill which essentially says that trying work will not trigger a PIP award review or a Work Capability Assessment. The importance of this is borne out in research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published in November last year, which said that almost 3/4 of work related disability benefit claimants they surveyed cited that fear of losing benefits would be a significant or very significant barrier to work.

The right to try matters because people with disability or a significant health condition often will not know what they are capable of doing. Until they have tried to do it. This can include not knowing what adjustments they may need to support to get back to work. Eight years ago this year, I had the news that I would be needing a series of operations, ankle and knee followed by a second hip replacement, in addition to the one I had had a decade before.

After this I automatically thought I would be able to return to five days a week in the office as soon I could walk unaided. It would take several months to be able to do this again. I was fortunate that I have been with my employer. For years and had six months unpaid leave which allowed me to try and initially failed to get back into work. But for anyone relying on support from DWP today, the reality is too often different. That is because we have a perverse and inflexible system in this country which has been designed to penalised and issue sanctions rather than incentivise and provide support.

A broken welfare system designed by the previous government that is failing people. It traps people by telling them the only way to get help is to declare they will never work again and create a climate of fear that if they try they will lose that support. This government is right to challenge and reformat system. I'm fully behind them in doing so. Because I know that if implemented well, the right to try will make a really positive impact to getting people back into work and go some way to dismantling the fear that surrounds the DWP for disabled people.

It is a positive measure that will empower disabled people rather than patronise or infantilised them. It has been campaigned on for decades. It is long overdue. I'm pleased to see it in this bill. And finally, I want to come to the principle of coproduction. I'm pleased to see that in this bill as well in which new clause 12 would block. Coproduction brings people together. It leads to policy that is more person centred and effective, and outcomes that are more equitable and sustainable.

It is not only essential in all conversations about disability policy but I feel it is particularly important when legislation passes through a democratic chamber like this one which so starkly underrepresented voices and lived experiences of disabled people. Whilst disabled people make up 20% of the population, they are represented in this chamber by around 2% of MPs. I think everyone in this chamber receives an A1 printout of election maps and in the top right-hand corner of the list diversity of this Parliament full stop which is never lost on me that it has a breakdown of women, ethnic minorities, LGBT MPs, and nowhere on their disabled MPs included.

Disabled people are a marginalised minority, and often overlooked in every corner of public life. As we look to reform the welfare system, and as we look to reform institutions across more broadly I hope we will stay true to this principle so services and policies are designed and incremented in a way that empowers and meets the real needs of disabled and meets the real needs of disabled
16:15
Stella Creasy Portrait Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )
-
-
At committee stage, we often table amendments to meet the needs of legislation but this process is like a concertina, with many questions put forward in the first is further we should make policy by phone in rather than on the basis of evidence and that is the clause from the Opposition who seem to not understand that public funds gave the lives of many people and also the fundamental principle that someone might have come here, worked for years in the NHS, and make develop MS, and under the proposals David denied them support.

The dog whistle -- the proposals would deny them support. We should not make policy by phone end but by evidence and I pay tribute to my colleague from Norfolk and for bringing the experiences that I have tabled the new clause 4 and I will speak briefly to that and to some others accordingly and they come from my experience of what makes good policy-making in this place and the concern that we have to protect constituents from the vagaries of public policy.

My constituent is physically disabled with a condition and she works full time but lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her and removing, messing around, playing with her benefits, as it would do for millions around the country, will not save money simply because more I she struggles to get to work using the support she gets under the current system to look after herself and get to work and means we will face higher cost in the long run and I wish that members would learn from the evidence from the bedroom tax which was brought under the same metric and somehow people supported by the welfare system it was supposed somehow making it up.

The bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to because it pushed costs to other parts of the public sector and for me the new clause 4 and the Convention for the Rights of Disabled People is so important to be weaved into this legislation because it should be dated by principle, not prejudice, particularly about respecting fellow human beings and constituents who have a disability. Also the clause covers the core production and there is an important principle we have not bottomed out and I want to hear from the Minister about that but it's a pretty simple premise that when we signed up for the UN Convention we said that for an adequate standard of living, identified in article 28, and, crucially, an independent process for constituents which was set out in article 19 and that is why when the UN has criticised the previous government, we have helped them to account.

Because if not, what standard of living do we wish for constituents? To be treated equally, to recognise the world we live in does not work for them and to account for that and the welfare system so they can live freely and play a part in the world of work but also live with dignity. It's about practical things like the freedom that comes from having a carer who helps you get dressed and that is supported with a Velcro system. On the travel costs, because London seems to be hellbent on breaking down stations so they are not accessible.

The food that you did because you might have a metabolic condition which means you need a diet which is low in protein. Using the welfare state to support these people, we can have the human rights we wish. The new clause 4 is about providing the provisions that are set out in the UN Charter to make sure people can live a life of freedom equally alongside us as fellow human beings and that the payments meet the tests so disabled people can meet living expenses and, for many of us, this is a question for hard-working people that they can recognise well and it is about levelling the playing field and not about making fools of us all about making the playing field level and I would hope the government would commit to those principles throughout the legislation and that is why clause 4 matters because it goes on to the basic principle of how we treat people including the universal credit health element of this because if we restrict a this because if we restrict a benefit that causes us to look at how the amount people receive lives up to the standard of living.

And with coproduction, many have talked about it but I don't know if people know what we mean. Consultation is not coproduction. Coproduction means whoever is included can say no. If you do not have a veto, you have issue. Coproduction allows everyone to ship things because they can walk out of the room. The Minister has spoken about consensus but it's not an equal relationship at the moment of disabled people don't have clear power to veto what is on the table and the government has to work with them for what is not on the table and that is a principle of coproduction and that is why it is not consultation and that is what we should be seeking and that is why I have sympathy for clause 8 because I was here when George Osborne used statutory instruments to/ tax credits that were relied upon for 3 million more people are pushed into poverty and Derbyshire when MPs expressed frustration that that was the process that was being used and we had to watch the House of Lords clear up the mess and stand up to the Chancellor using the delegated legislation to take £1300 away from constituents.

I hope the Minister understands is not about the bill or his good intentions because I know he has engaged with all of us but it's the principle that if we are going to change the law, we should be able to scrutinise it on behalf of constituents. My colleague set out many alternative ways to switch spending to save money in the long run and there are many ways to support the economy to grow and it does not have to be off the back of the civil constituents and there is an important principle that I know many belief which is that socialism is the language of priorities.

Our priority must be to empower every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential and yes that is through the economy, welfare state, and I hope the Minister will see those and answer and address the questions because, for many, these are things we cannot bring back to constituents and they are troubling because they tell us we cannot achieve those things and we flip through George Osborne and the bedroom tax and we don't want to go back to that and we want to say to constituents that yes, absolutely, we can be proud of the system that we are building today.
16:24
Alison Hume Portrait Alison Hume MP (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak in support of the new clause 11 and amendment 38. I'm relieved the government has listened and most importantly listen to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP in taking clause 5 out of the bill and the frames of reference have been said without involving disabled people but, that said, there is a chance with the new clause to make sure it moves forward in a truly produced way. What worries me is that without the Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them, rather than done to them.

I have worked in the shoes of families in my constituency, bringing up a child with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsideration, tribunal. The situation is familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities. This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the proposed changes of the government because the DWP is too frequently at war with people it is supposed to protect and it lets down the most vulnerable in our community and it mostly gets away with it and recently I constituent won a legal fight to prevent her benefits being stopped.

The DWP admitted it was a mistake. It is not the only avoidable death. Decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once when I was literally waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son's benefit if I drop the tribunal. The experience cemented in my mind something I believe to this day, that the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. The culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable and fair and compassionate system for the future and my constituent suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions including PTSD, ADHD, anxiety disorder, kidney disease, liver disease.

After reporting the deterioration in May, he submitted new evidence to support higher rate of PIP which led to his reward being removed entirely and he was left with no income or support, despite his ongoing need for care. This is the reality. Many disabled people turned down for PIP rely on the health element of Universal Credit and many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions like MS, ME, mental health conditions and this means that during periods of remission, the return to employment but once the condition deteriorates, they return to Universal Credit.

With this bill, if the condition deteriorates and the average tart to return, it would be on a lower level than they were on before, down to just £50 a week which completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of the condition. About the protections provided for by amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less by those with predictable ones. I would urge all honourable members to support the new clause 11 and amendment 38 and finally I asked the government, please, even at this late stage, let's pool the bill and get it right for the people who matter, disabled
16:28
Cat Eccles Portrait Cat Eccles MP (Stourbridge, Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak in favour of a variety of amendments and I will mention them as I go. In the life of an MP, not a day goes by without hearing from I constituent with an issue with benefits or health. We can all think of people who have suffered badly after 14 years of austerity imposed by the party opposite. The sick, disabled and vulnerable were left trapped in a lift, fighting a broken system that fails to many. I doubt many have personal experience of the cruel welfare system.

I do. And I became ill at work with a heart condition initially and then, not long after, and Ellen Wilson, I almost lost my life. That was followed by a total mental breakdown. The punitive sickness policies meant I would soon be managed out of my job which I love so much by HR, who refused to acknowledge occupational health recommendation. I was in receipt of Universal Credit for about one year, receiving £690 a month which did not even cover rent and bills and I was at risk of losing my rented home but thankfully I had friends and family to support me but not everyone is unfortunate.

My confidence plummeted and the feelings of failure, rejection, feeling useless, not rejection, feeling useless, not being able to sustain myself, they were all consuming. Nobody chooses this life. Yesterday, the UN wrote to the government, stating the rhetoric, language, false statements used when discussing welfare is damaging, as well as raising concerns about human rights violations and I'm pleased that violations and I'm pleased that clause 5 has been pulled from the bill but it is not clear what will happen with PIP and, more importantly, when MPs can scrutinise and debate the proposals.

Will there be a vote following the review? It's imperative members have oversight of the outcome before any implementation. Failure to do so could lead to measures being pursued which many members have been opposed to a long and for these reasons I've supported the new clause 8 on behalf of my right honourable friend and I'm pleased the government is scrapping that freeze to universal health element that will remain for future claimants potentially deepening poverty for many people and creating another two-tier system.

The conditions criteria is welcome that it does not include fluctuating conditions like Parkinson's, MS, ME, and nor does it cover cancer. I will be supporting amendment 38, amendment 17, for the honourable member for Dunfermline, 44, which is the member for Isle of Wight West, and amendment 2A for my honourable friend from Leeds East. In my constituency, over the past few days, many people thanked me for voting against this flawed bill. And that was not just disabled people and their families and carers, these are charity workers, work coaches, nurses, local authority staff.

Nobody supports this bill, not deaf and disabled People's groups, charities, not health organisations, not even the United Nations supported. Let me be clear, the system needs reform, and none of us disagree that it needs to change. On this site we campaigned on the premise in the manifesto and I was proud to tell voters on the doorstep that we would be fixing Social Security and making it easier for people to claim. But the bill before us is not that.

Colleagues, does not have to be this way. There are alternatives. In fact my honourable Friend for Nottingham East listed no fewer than 10 options on social media this week. My honourable friend for Sheffield Hallam has raised more points today in her speech. And I will offer you some more. As per amendment 37 in my name, stop outsourcing health assessments to five profit healthcare company. Seven in 10 assessments are going to tribunal is, at the expense of the DWP.

There is a lack of cohesive strategy with assessments carried out by all manner of staff with wildly varying experiences and backgrounds. Although it has not been selected for decision, I'm grateful to the Minister for recognising the need to have this discussion about how we can do things better. With the NHS 10 year plan launched, I would like to see the DWP working closely with the Department of Health to utilise that digital technology to link health records with DWP records. And reduce the burden on applicants to provide evidence of their illnesses.

Let's deploy mental health taskforces to drive down waiting lists. Many people on long-term sick leave are awaiting mental health treatment or diagnosis. The Secretary of State for Health set up a task force for elective waiting lists and my local hospital trust which has been hugely successful in reducing waiting times. Let's look at the same strategy for mental health. United Nations briefly, says the UK/not met obligations to tackle offshore tax evasion losing billions for the exec every single year.

Millions of pounds of Covid fraud has still not been recouped, and not forgetting that the HMRC wrote off £5 billion in unpaid tax last year. There are plenty of options to make savings, we just need the will to do it. And I will end by telling you about a friend I bumped into just last weekend. A friend, Harry, he was walking with a crutch and told me he had been hit by a car fracturing his ankle, neck, and scalp, and damaging a disc in his back.

When his head was scanned at the hospital, doctors discovered a brain tumours which has now been removed. Harry is still waiting for the results of that surgery but is really struggling with his memory and his speech as well as recovering from his injuries. Singh Harry reminded me that this could happen to any one of us at any time. This bill affects everyone, one in three of us will become disabled at some point in our lifetime. And whilst some may not need assistance, many well and I wanted to be there for my family, my friends, and constituents to make sure no one is left in poverty.

75% of Universal Credit health claimants experienced material deprivation and already live deep in poverty. I did not come here to make people worse off, and that is why I still cannot support this bill. this bill.
16:36
Deirdre Costigan Portrait Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak on the government amendments this evening and against some other amendments that I will mention. Before I was elected, I worked for the trade union, Unison, the national officer for disability quality. In that job I saw every day how disabled people who love their job are so often pushed out of the workplace. By employers who refuse to make the small changes that would help them to thrive at work. Through the Mayfield Review, this Labour government is seizing the opportunity to finally make the workplace more accessible for disabled people.

And the Employment Rights Bill will bring in flexible working, allowing disabled workers to perhaps start a little later in the morning, or to work from to avoid the morning rush-hour and the pain of that. Alongside this, I've also introduced my own bill for a deadline for employer responses to reasonable adjustment requests from disabled workers. So we are transforming the workplace for disabled people. And Labour is also making work pay. No longer will it be a choice between benefits and a bargain basement job.

We have increased wages for 3 million low- paid workers, committed to introducing mandatory disability pay gap monitoring. And delivered the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a generation. But government new clause 1 and the associated amendments today will ensure that, for those who can't work, the Universal Credit health benefit will increase in line with inflation. And the bill ends the absolute indignity of constant reassessment for those severe conditions. Almost 15,000 families in Ealing Southall will also see the basic rate of Universal Credit increase by a record amount.

Lifting thousands of children out of poverty across the country. Amendment 12 would rob those 15,000 families of that money, and it must be rejected. But it cannot be right that almost 3 million people are off work on long-term sick. 1 million young people not earning or learning. And 1000 people a day applying for PIP. We are an outlier internationally. No other country in the world has seen the same massive increase in people on sickness - related benefits.

It is unique to this country, and we do people with long-term conditions no favours by ignoring it. The Tories created this broken system, you are better off on sickness benefits than in work. And there is no help for those who want a job. Everyone knows it needs reform. But I'm afraid amendment 2A and 2B and conservative amendments 50 to 55 would continue to put reform on the long finger and delay change. Last August when I visited West Ealing Jobcentre, after 14 years of the Tories, and asked who I could speak to if I was a disabled person who needed a job that would work around my needs.

I was told there was no one. No one at all. That is why we need change now. Under Labour, west London is one of the 14 Get Britain Working trailblazers across the country. People on long-term sickness benefits with back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions, which are the second-largest reason why people claim health-related benefits, have been contacted and asked if they want help to get a job. Hundreds have replied that they do, they have been sat there waiting for us to contact them.

These are people who were ignored by the previous government. People who wanted to work but were left on the scrapheap. £8 million from this Labour government is helping West Londoners into work. In today's bill is part of a much bigger £1 billion plan to extend that to every Jobcentre and every disabled person who wants a good job. The new right to try will build a more flexible benefit system that does not force people to put themselves in the box locked out of work for ever.

But it allows them to try work without losing benefits. I am glad this government has ensured that no one on PIP will lose it. And that the government will be coproducing the PIP review with disabled people. It is over a decade since the PIP system was last reviewed. Since then, we have learnt more about the impact of mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions. But true coproduction means letting the review go ahead, without this House trying to control it.

So we must reject the rootedness of new clause 8 and new clause 11 in favour of true coproduction. Disabled people were let down again and again by the previous government. Labour is finally delivering equality for disabled workers, while fixing the broken system that forces almost 3 million people to languish on long- term sickness benefits without help. If colleagues across this House genuinely want reform, that builds a better more flexible benefits system, that makes work pay, that takes 50,000 children out of poverty and properly supports disabled people who can't work, then they need to do more than just talk about it.

They need to vote for this bill and get on with the job of changing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain for the better. Thank you. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of new clause 8 and new clause 11 and clause 8 and new clause 11 and amendment 38, and also to the bill more broadly. May I say that this more broadly. May I say that this has been a very informed debate conducted very respectfully. And conducted very respectfully. And throughout this entire process it has been quite illuminating to hear has been quite illuminating to hear from so many members with such in- from so many members with such in- depth personal familial and depth personal familial and professional experience, speak with great authority was I would urge our great authority was I would urge our Frontbench to look upon such members as a resource from across the House because they speak with great because they speak with great authority.

And especially the speeches from the members of South speeches from the members of South West Norfolk and Beckenham and Penge which was so informative. May I just
16:43
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
which was so informative. May I just correct one of the earlier comments, when we heard from a member on the opposite benches that No Recourse to Public Funds meant recourse to public funds. The clue is in the descriptor, and I know that Boris Johnson struggled with this but No Recourse to Public Funds means exactly what it says. I wish to speak to the impact the House will want to adopt in a clause two today. I recognise the adoption of amendment to adopts some of the previously announced concessions and somewhat limits the damage of the clause.

Let me be clear, even with the amendment clause is not acceptable. The bill is not welfare reform, it is a cut, deliberate, far-reaching and deeply damaging. Even after amendments, clause two removes £2 billion from disabled people in the years ahead. Three quarters of those affected are already in material deprivation. Around 750,000 individuals, people too ill to work, stands to lose an average of £3000 a year. Members must consider today which of their constituent whose door they not on will find themselves £3000 a year worse off.

The weekly top up for those too unwell to work, currently £97, will fall to £50 for new applicants. Same condition, same need as current claimants. Half the support. It is not fairness it is the creation of a two-tier welfare system. We are not talking about abstractions, we are talking about people who cannot walk 50 m, people who need constant supervision, people who cannot operate the keypad unaided. They currently receive £423 per month. Soon some could receive as little as £217 per month.

This is not a Budget decision, it is a moral one. The direction is clear. And it is backwards. Ministers claim that by 2030, this bill could lift 50,000 people out of poverty. Respected economists and think tanks have called this projection misleading. It is not based on current law. But upon hypothetical Tory policies that never materialised. How on earth can we claim credit for something that the party opposite did not in? It does not stand up.

Spin will not shield this government from the consequences. As we know, perhaps half a million future claimants living in material deprivation must be prepared to live on less depending on how we vote today. depending on how we vote today. Age-related PIP cuts is welcome but the same delay must apply to Universal Credit. Why rush to take from those too unwell to work without fully understanding the consequences? And why are disabled people being excluded from the conversation we have heard the most eloquent contributions about the true nature of coproduction, and we must caution against a process whereby people's opinions are heard whereby people's opinions are heard I note that the UN I note that the UN Committee I note that the UN Committee on I note that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disability has written to the government and said that reform must not disproportionately affect the rights of disabled people to independent living and we must take on the enormity of that intervention from the UN and pause for a moment.

We are being told by organisations such as Scope and the MS Society that the bill does not take account for disabilities if we are fluctuating. That is why I support the amendment of my honourable friend and similar amendments and I have heard the Minister come to the dispatch box and give some assurances around notes for guidance but I have to point out that the words are the words and what is contained in the schedule of the bill makes it abundantly clear that they have to apply constantly and will do so for the rest of the life of the climate and it will work out for the rest of their life and we hear a great deal about encouraging people to try to work.

It's not in the bill but in the regulations and I would implore the Minister to think this through and if it remains like this, it will discourage people from the opportunity and that is why I endorse the amendment from my right honourable friend. A government that claims to care about fairness cannot proceed like this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to him for giving way and there is a motion which way and there is a motion which would seek to strip foreign nationals of the right to claim benefits, meaning some people would be left with no support I include my be left with no support I include my father who's been in the country for 40 years and has paid into the system and the amendment is despicable and I invite the honourable member to join me in honourable member to join me in agreeing with that statement.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreeing with that statement. It is a powerful point and we have to raise our heads and look at have to raise our heads and look at those who have been economically engaged with the country and think about the contribution and the tax about the contribution and the tax and National Insurance contributions and treat people with dignity and respect rather than trying to cut at every opportunity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every opportunity. He makes an incredibly powerful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes an incredibly powerful and telling point with regard to the disincentive of trying to get into work if you have a varied or work if you have a varied or fluctuating condition such as MS. Would he agree with me that in the conversations the Minister has with what we are lazily inclined to refer to as the disabled community or disabled group which is unless it breaks the groups down into those who have a permanent condition and also fluctuating condition and individually tailor the responses, and this would be a missed opportunity to get it right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is important right and that is why it's important we reflect is why it's important we reflect that on the face of the bill. With all sincerity, we cannot walk away thinking that the guidance, which thinking that the guidance, which may change, and in further iterations it might say something completely different to what this minister is saying today and it may change fundamentally. Effectively, change fundamentally. Effectively, what we are saying is policy for disabled people must be made with disabled people must be made with them and not imposed upon them and if we are serious about ending austerity, we cannot keep bouncing austerity, we cannot keep bouncing the books on the backs of the purist and that means revisiting not just what we spent but who we tax and how.

We are proud about them making how. We are proud about them making a case that the country has done so well by them and they are so privileged to have made a success of their lives and they have flourished and looking at the opportunities and and looking at the opportunities and saying that we can make a further contribution and they have made the contribution and they have made the argument around the wealth tax which would raise £24 billion. Nigel Lawson, as Chancellor, but the differentiation was there and he equalised it and there are opportunities and in terms of the Employment Rights Bill, the wonderful opportunities, to grasp the issue of single status worker and deal with employment, zero hours contracts, the rest, it represents secure and well-paid unionised work for people to give them a flourishing life but also the opportunity to collect currently uncollected tax and national insurance to the tune of £10 billion.

And it means supporting people according to their need. That But from the apostles. The country deserves better. If we lose our nerve now, we will lose the vote and who they trust that brought us here and we must reflect that in these discussions, each and every one of us has heard the response from constituents, officers, that this has been a shambles. There is no other way to describe it. Now is the moment to stop the cuts and I would implore the government to rethink

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill. I rise to support my announcement
16:53
Nadia Whittome Portrait Nadia Whittome MP (Nottingham East, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support my announcement and a number of other amendments tabled by honourable and right tabled by honourable and right honourable friend including NC 8, 11, and amendment 38 and I want to pay tribute to the disabled and chronically ill people whose campaigning led to these concessions. I have been proud to stand with them but these changes do not alleviate all of my concerns about this bill. One in three disabled people are in poverty and the bill, even after amendments, would take around £3000 a year from the disabled people of the future at a time when the extra cost is set to rise by 12% in the next five years.

The analysis from the government states the measures will lift 50,000 people out of poverty but analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation shows it would actually push 50,000 disabled people into poverty. We know that statistics help to track women suffering domestic abuse, and even cost life like one of my constituents who died from a deliberate overdose after her benefits were wrongly cut. This is particularly pertinent to those with fluctuating conditions we risk losing their status during periods of temporary improvements and this is why the amendment is vital in ensuring that they are protected.

Even with government concessions, not a single disabled People's organisation supports the bill. It is at the request of the Disabled Persons Organisation Forum England that I've tabled an amendment 10 which would require the government publishes a memorandum on human rights before the bill is enacted. No analysis of the impact of the bill on the human rights of disabled people has been published so far. Last year, the UN found that there had been for the regression on the grave and systemic violations of the rights of disabled people in the UK which were reported on in 2016.

Last night, the UN approach to government, saying it had received credible information indicating the bill would deepen regression. We should not be proceeding with this bill as it stands. Disabled pupils organisations -- disabled people's organisations are also sceptical of the amendment regarding PIP and I'm hoping we support the amendment of my right honourable friend which makes provision for commitments around coproduction and oversight. It must also support the new clause 8, which would ensure changes from the Timms review are implemented as primary legislation, essential for democratic scrutiny, otherwise people cannot vote on the legislation and it would promote a reduction in eligibility for PIP which we know would be disastrous and motivated many of us to call on and motivated many of us to call on the government to think again.

I joined the Labour Party because of what I experienced and witnessed growing up as a child and a teenager under the Conservatives and as a disabled MP I have first-hand experience of the benefit system and we have all met with constituents who are already not getting the support that they need. The question today is, to be let that number today is, to be let that number grow. -- Do we let the number grow? If so, I would charge us to strengthen protections for disabled people and ultimately vote against this bill.

this bill.
16:58
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and three from the bill because I think this gets to the heart of the unfairness that is contained within. I think there can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that the trust was eroded between the government and disabled People's organisations and that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over coming months and therefore we should recognise that a positive step in that direction was the decision by the government to pause the issue of PIP reform and place decisions in the hands of the Timms review.

That is not enough. This bill contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the Universal Credit health element for 750,000 future climates and so from next April, we will have created a two-tier benefit system based not on health needs but they did when your claim was made. In fact there are -- the date. In fact there are already millions of disabled people living in poverty across the country today and that is a damning indictment of the welfare system and it should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not call to bring that number down, not make it go further, higher, more.

The numbers are stark. Taking £3000 a year or £250 a month from the income of disabled people will force families to crisis point and further reliance on food banks. If the cuts are not removed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation claim an additional 50,000 people will be forced into 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, 75% of all Universal Credit health recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live.

If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefit system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of Universal Credit is not also part of the Timms If we are honest it is not good practice, as we saw last week, to make long-term social policy in a rush or in a vacuum. All parts of the benefits system including Universal Credit, health need to be considered because without it, there cannot be a complete picture of the system or the challenges that disabled people face.

One of the fears of Disabled People's Organisations is that the funding for reform is still the same as it was before and the Timms Review will simply be looking at different ways to achieve the same financial ends. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore clarify whether the review starts with a financial target of how much money it must save, or whether this is a genuine attempt to redesign the system so that it benefits everyone, even if it ends up costing more.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. Is my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. Is my honourable friend aware that 25% of those claiming that health element those claiming that health element used to foodbank last year, and also one third of those who claimed the health element of Universal Credit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health element of Universal Credit could not afford to heat their homes last winter? I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. It is further evidence of how our current welfare evidence of how our current welfare system isn't working. I understand that some members may consider that some members may consider voting for this bill tonight because of the uplift that it proposed, that is proposed to the standard rate of is proposed to the standard rate of Universal Credit. But I want to say this, disabled groups themselves this, disabled groups themselves that I have met with are quite clear that this is not worth having if it that this is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line.

Members will have seen the the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee for the rights of disabled committee for the rights of disabled people, which has raised very serious concerns that the bill will deepen the science of regression in disabled people's human rights. The answer remains that clauses two and three of the bill needs to be removed. And we should allow the Timms Review to look at all aspects of the benefit system and report back next year.

That is what disabled people and their organisations want and that is what I will be voting for.
17:03
Lizzi Collinge Portrait Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week I voted against the government because I was not happy with the proposals that were on the table. When the bill was initially put forward, I was particularly concerned about the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria which in my view were arbitrary, and which risked taking support from those who needed it most. I'm glad to say that the government has listened and has acted. With government amendment four to remove changes to PIP eligibility, alongside other positive changes, I can now, carefully and with reservation, supports the bill as amended.

The removal of changes to PIP eligibility criteria from this bill also protects carers, stopping them seeing the consequent loss of Carer's Allowance. As a former care of myself, this is very important to me. I put a lot of thought into this issue over the preceding weeks. I've listened to my constituents, and I've been thinking about what is important to them. But only have the amendments remove the changes to PIP I was worried about, but the bill that it now stands includes vital increases to the basic level of Universal Credit.

I don't feel able Universal Credit. I don't feel able to vote against that today. He we inherited out the mess the Conservatives and we need a system that is well-designed, that works operationally and is fair to both claimants and other taxpayers. So welcome ministerial review of the assessment. Coproduction assessment and the organisations that represent them is welcome. A thorough review in genuine coproduction leading to well thought out proposals for reform is the right thing to do. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be holding... The honourable ladies putting the cart before the horse, as the government is. You do your review first. You find out what that says. You tailor your policies and your response to it. Not this half baked response to it. Not this half baked idea which satisfies nobody. Isn't that the best way of making policy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him fizz intervention I think is Mr bit for the government is taking out clause 5 and is taking out the PIP eligibility criteria and out the PIP eligibility criteria and doing the review first. I think of his intervention. I will be holding the government to account on their the government to account on their promises on this review. I also endorse the earlier comment from my endorse the earlier comment from my honourable friend, and I support her new clause 11. This debate has new clause 11.

This debate has brought in a whole different raft of issues and I think at times it has conflated them. Before I talk about conflated them. Before I talk about some of the other changes I support, I want to emphasise that PIP is not I want to emphasise that PIP is not just an out of work in a fit. It is claimed by people who are both in claimed by people who are both in work and out of work and it is there for the extra costs associated with disabilities and long-term conditions.

However, there is also a conditions. However, there is also a huge problem with the employment gap there are a lot of people who want to work but can't simply for the lack of a bit of support, some healthcare treatment, or an employer who is willing to make reasonable adjustments. So I welcome the plans for implement support that have been brought forward with extra investment. To be clear, my concerns always focused on a small part of the more broader reform package. For the issues of time I won't go into that.

They are vital steps to fix the system. I won't say I don't have any concerns left which is why I supported amendment 17 by my honourable friend for Dunfermline. But no policy or solution would be perfect as no Green Paper can address everything, no legislation can get everything right. I have been reminded in these past weeks about something my friend Joe once said to me. He said politics is not a game to be played, it is people's lives.

People's lives matter. I wonder constituents have so little faith in our political system when what should have been a debate about the rights and wrongs of a policy, what should have been a debate about the lives of our constituents has instead turned into a debate about the Westminster bubble. The Westminster bubble ought to be popped quickly. I think that the views of the House had been made clear over the last couple of weeks. I'm glad that the government has listened.

I will always speak out as I know my honourable colleagues will without fear and without favour. But we will always fight for a better ferret welfare system for everyone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Share. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Share. I rise to speak in support of the removal of clause 5 and its associated amendments and to make
17:08
Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )
-
-
associated amendments and to make some comments on a few of the other amendments based on my reading and learning of it all. Many things have been said in this debate in this chamber and outside, but it is undeniable that the current system is not working for far too many people. A welfare bill rising, people trapped on benefits, opportunities lost. The most heartbreaking part of this subject is not the cost we seem to talk about in terms of money but the cost in terms of people being written off to a lifetime on a failed broken system.

Stories all of us here every week in our case work with surgeries. People who want to work don't have support. Inclusive assessments, bureaucracy where human touch is needed. People who want to try work but don't for fear of losing their benefits. Disabled people who need more support. There was talk earlier from an honourable Friend was no longer in his place about the broken social contract. Whilst we approach this debate with the compassion and care we need, we also have to be clear the social contract is already broken.

There is nothing honourable about denying action or slowing down action to tackle 2.8 million people thrown on the scrapheap through being long- term sick. There is nothing to cherish from the other side about leaving a legacy for this government of nearly 1 million young people thrown on the scrapheap not in employment, not in education, and employment, not in education, and not in any use. No one can say the spirit is not broken and we have to approach this legislation in that spirit.

I want to speak against those amendments that seek to delay or reckless bill further because I think it is certain whatever happens next we need to get going. One of the criticisms of this government I sometimes hear that we don't move fast enough. Now we have started to move on fixing our broken welfare system, and we are being told by some we are going too far. I think we can move forward with a bill that begins to fix the foundations of our welfare system and do it with compassion for those most in need.

I welcome some of the contributions I have heard today on it. I also welcome the care of ministers who have listened about the bill. And I welcome the move last week which I speak in favour of that will take clause 5 out of it as I know that is what gave anxiety not just a member of this House but so many people outside who saw that with risk and fear. Bringing the Timms Review forward before any changes are made and committing to fully involving disabled people and their organisations is the right thing to do.

And the government have listened. I recognise many of the points made, impassioned speeches and the amendment from my honourable Friend from Penistone and Stocksbridge in new clause 11 and I hope the Minister will address that and assure the House that the sentiment has been taken on board. I think it makes this bill a better deal what they were spill. But it is important we push ahead with this bill. Work is central to Labour's mission, as other colleagues have said, and it is right because dignity comes from good work and employers that embrace employees and give people the ability to work.

There is no dignity in allowing 2.8 million people to be thrown on the scrapheap with no ability to get off that nobility to go through...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. I recognise exactly what he is saying recognise exactly what he is saying because both of my parents were forced out of work. They were unwell, they could not get the unwell, they could not get the support they need from the NHS, they could not get the foot in the door the Social Security system. As the the Social Security system. As the health got worse they got further away from workforce. And I wish we had had better support then would he had had better support then would he agree with me that it is positive the government is open to setting a disability employment target which disability employment target which could drive action particularly in my constituency of Bournemouth East, my constituency of Bournemouth East, where the figure stands at 24% which seems unacceptable after 14 years and the Conservatives?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the Conservatives? I think it makes a powerful case why our job is to fix the bill not why our job is to fix the bill not 'Kill the Bill'. In terms of our 'Kill the Bill'. In terms of our considerations. The dignity and centrality of work should be something we should be passionate about whether it is young people unemployed in my constituency or disabled people in my constituency, frustrated by a system that does not work in wanting the government to work in wanting the government to rebuild it.

The mission was to a years ago the election of the post- war Attlee government that picked up the pieces following the devastation of the Second World War. It is true today in the mission and passion of our government to fix the foundations of a broken welfare system and a broken economy. I said in the second reading, I'm particularly concerned about the impact of the welfare trap on young people. I represent a city where we have one of the highest levels of, I keep thing horrible phrase but I'm not saying it, NEETs, people are starting a life on benefits.

We know that trend has not been made easier by the failure of the mental health system and the health system which has put the pressure on them without any help or support to get them through that. I'm a passionate advocate for apprenticeships. It cannot be right that many young people in Peterborough and across the country starting and lives on benefits. I support the move which says we should not be paying and if it's to young people to stay at home. We should be investing in young people to earn, learn, and strain.

I hope the Minister can expand upon those points, as he comes to respond to some of this debate. Because this morally, politically, and economically write the young people should be earning and learning. And it is right that with the removal of clause 5, I'm content that this bill begins to start the journey of fixing. It is the start is not the end, but the start we need to make. start we need to make.
17:14
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
... I rise to speak to many amendments that I signed in desperation in attempts to improve this bill because I did not enter politics to strip vital support and those who need it. Yet this bill does exactly that. We are the party that created the welfare state so we know the welfare state is not a handout. Sadly the debate around this bill has had it characterised as that but it is a lifeline. Proposing to take the lifestyle away from anyone who needs it is a betrayal of those we are elected to serve.

While I welcome the government stepping back and some of it I don't believe it goes further. As it stands money is still set to be cut from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people on low incomes and that is why it is not right. I was pleased to support amendment 2A to scrap the cuts to Universal Credit health element entirely. We have to realise that disability rights organisations still do not support this. The impact assessments that do exist are inadequate and thousands will still be pushed into poverty.

In truth, the announcement of the Timms Review does little to quell my fears. The government led review will take place after the bill takes effect, co-produced or not, the government will take support away from disabled people and then consult them on their views after the fact. The toxicity around this bill has ensured it has been criticised by those who needs to support it. Whilst I'm pleased that the points element has been removed from the bill, I still share concerns held by many disability rights groups about what this bill will truly mean for disabled people.

That is why I signed my name to amendments that will go some way to making this bill somewhat more humane like amendment 38, to protect those with This is to fix concerns around the Timms review, ensure implementation, and look at coproducing with disabled people. Other terms of support include those that protect heroes and ensure due regard is given to the UN Convention. -- carers. We have to remember that PIP allows many disabled people to access work and cutting support does not incentivise it prevents it and they claim this would have boosted employment does not hold up and let's not forget it was published three weeks ago, got it at the second reading, with a further week to rush it through Parliament and that is not the way to legislate on matters with serious consequences.

We have a health crisis around mental health and the answer is not taking financial support away from those who need it to reduce the numbers, people of work due to mental health, we must address the issues, get on with plans to allow people to access appointments and assessments that deal with conditions worsening. This is not how we should prepare reform. I would charge the government to throw the bill out. Some might say it is mad but it cannot be worse than what we are doing.

We have to be right about moving forward. In terms of the sick and disabled, I'm tired about how we talk about the economy and the house like it is a household bill, cutting this or that because no one asks an economist to find out how to look at growth and people how to look at growth and people tell us I am young and I cannot find anyone to tell me times where cuts to welfare services have sought the issues of the day.

There are other ways to save money and many members have pointed out them today including ending tax loopholes, a tax on wealth, and the new clause 37 about scrapping third-party PIP assessment because many are making millions of pounds out of these and they humiliate people and they get it wrong and we are told that this is about getting people into work and we have to continue to hold onto this idea -- but we continue to hold onto the idea.

It may seem bad to drop the bill at the late stage but it cannot be worse than what has happened in the past couple of weeks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sometimes politics seems complicated and the passage of a bill through parliament, particularly the antics last week, it seems difficult. But it is it seems difficult. But it is simple. Today, Wednesday,, simple. Today, Wednesday,, Wednesday, 9 July, 2025, are Labour
17:20
Richard Burgon Portrait Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)
-
-
Wednesday, 9 July, 2025, are Labour MPs going to vote for cuts to Universal Credit which will take £2 billion from 750,000 sick and disabled people already on low income? People who have been judged as not fit to work. Will we put our name to a bill which will take an average of £3000 out of the pockets of every one of those 750,000 people Twitter I think MPs should find it very easy because the bill coming today which asks us to take billions of pounds from low-income people in constituencies across the country, I think they would find it easy to vote no.

I asked my friend on this side of the House to cast their minds back to when they were first elected. None of us got into politics to take £3000 a year out of the pockets of low-income people who are sick and disabled and on Universal Credit. It has been said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. People outside the chamber see this issue very clearly indeed. The bill has been railroaded through and the voices of disabled people are being excluded and and colleagues say not to listen Said Said not Said not to Said not to listen Said not to listen to Said not to listen to the organisations, not one of them support the changes.

This is being rushed through with a Committee of the Whole House mac rather than with disabled people and people with lived experiences talking on the committee at this is because of a politically imposed artificial deadline to save face. I welcome the changes that were made last week as a result of pressure from disabled people and backbench MPs but we are voting to date and taking the money off people on low income and on further we think, after saying last week it was wrong to have a two-tier PIP system, whether it is wrong to have a two-tier Universal Credit system.

The reality is people remember how we voted eight and it has been said before and will be set again but some votes define us as politicians and as people and define how we use time in Parliament and disabled people who come to see us will not understand if we vote for this cut to Universal Credit us Labour people or abstain. We will live with that in every single constituency surgery between now and the next general election. Take a step back and imagine, I know we have the clip system but imagine we have the clip system but imagine we did not.

-- whip. All of us agree are 99% of things but I think if this vote was not whipped, the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote against cutting Universal Credit. We will have to live with that. It is often said the longer the statement often said the longer the statement on Twitter by an MP after votes, the worse it was. You end up wondering if they really voted for that after if they really voted for that after all they said, television, the tweets, the chamber.

We are Labour people. This is not left and right in Labour but right and wrong and any MP who votes against the cuts to low-income people will sleep soundly knowing that they did all they could on this to stand up for disabled constituents. That is what we got into politics to do and we should not plough ahead but we should vote this out. Speak final speaker and then I will call on the spokesperson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the Liberal Democrats. I rise to speak against
17:25
David Pinto-Duschinsky Portrait David Pinto-Duschinsky MP (Hendon, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak against amendments 2A and 45 45. As amendments 2A and 45 45. As his heart was a prophet like the other people should be protected from people should be protected from hardship and supported to reach full potential and underpinning the vision was a clear principle, everyone who can work should work, everyone who can work should work, not just for the dignity and agency that it brings that because it is the most effective route out of the most effective route out of poverty.

Children in workless households are five times more likely to grow up truer than when likely to grow up truer than when every adult works. That principle is every adult works. That principle is the same today. It is now one in the same today. It is now one in eight people and this is a challenge rooted in the design of the welfare system in the UK because too often system in the UK because too often people with health conditions and disabilities a lot of work.

Too disabilities a lot of work. Too often, it penalises attempt to get ahead and does not offer full support. Too often, it writes of support. Too often, it writes of people. Disabled people have unemployment rate 20% lower than those without disabilities and they face a wider gap in employment than many international countries. The poverty rate is 10% higher. It is not compassion. We owe it to these individuals and the fringes of the bill twisted to fix this problem.

We cannot fall back on slogans. It would abandon those who need help most but that is what the amendments do. Starting with 45, 52, and clause 12, all from the empty Opposition benches, which reveal a lack of seriousness and plan. They presided over this crisis of opportunity and they failed to reform the system, addressed the disability and employment gap and tackle the employment profits tripled on their watch. We have not been able to explain an alternative throughout the debate.

The Shadow Chancellor said he could not say exactly what he would do. They have resorted to gimmicks. I meant 45 demands all gimmicks. I meant 45 demands all assignments -- amendment 45 demands all assessments are face-to-face but the party opposite cut them by 90%. If there was a -- an Olympic event for a brass neck, they would win. Essentially, they have admitted in the small print. It is unnecessary. Unlike them, the government is restoring most assessments back to be face-to-face.

The same for amendment 52 and new clause 12. The IP already has strict qualification rules and this needs-based and the proposals would not affect meaningful change but slow down reform and once again it is gesture politics, not the plan. If the Opposition admits a problem but offers no plan, I fear I meant 2A does not acknowledge a problem but instead will scrap changes which are vital to rebalancing the system and will not just remove this incentive to work but also remove the largest above-inflation increase in jobseeker payment since the 1970s.

These will rise £725 a year for 6.5 million people by 2029 and help 15,000 people in my constituency. 15,000 people in my constituency. Removing these changes will risk losing measures which have lifted 50,000 children out of poverty. None of this is easy. These are real lives, not abstract policies. I understand the anxiety that the bid qualities but freezing this system and ignoring the failings locks in current injustices and creates future profit. We should start by reaffirming the basic purpose of the system, to protect, treat all with dignity, and empower and give people true agency which means recognising that some cannot work and sharing protection for the vulnerable and listening and coproducing with disabled people.

It also means ensuring those who can work do so, offering support and holding employers to account. I believe that the government proposals to this. Just as the government of Clement Attlee reimagined the role of the state after the war, so must we after the evils of the pandemic, economic change, rising ill health. The world has changed at the welfare system must, too. We must reform the system, not in spite of Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues have described the events surrounding this bill is chaotic and shambolic and they are
17:30
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
chaotic and shambolic and they are right to do so. Right at the outset, when the government sadly failed to consult on key elements of this, it consult on key elements of this, it was setting up this bill to fail. Also, there is an assessment, and impact assessment, from the government which, I fear, is somewhat misleading, because it makes in cuts that the previous Conservatives had planned but hadn't been actually implemented, so I am somewhat cautious of some of the figure work that has come out from the government.

I would also highlight, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, that we acknowledge there needs to be reform of the welfare system. We need to chase down the cost of this. That this is not the way to do it. You invest to save is the way you make serious changes in these matters, and one area we need these matters, and one area we need to be undertaking it is the NHS, and we know, and I know from my constituents in Torbay, there are still people with long-term illnesses who are stuck on Universal Credit because health interventions have not happened with them that this need to happen.

They desperately need to be alive to the challenge that we have got in our employment market. We should not take a silo approach to this matter. We should take an approach that is holistic and says how can we fit the holistic and says how can we fit the whole -- Fixed the whole system. Therefore, as Liberal Democrats, we do truly welcomed the Charlie Mayfield Review, because when we look over the channel at our look over the channel at our continental neighbours, they have significantly have higher levels of productivity and employment from people who are long-term sick and have disabilities.

So, clearly there are lessons to be learned, and so, chasing this in parliament, in the way this has been done, is setting this situation up for failure. PIP, well, it's bizarre, isn't it? There is an amendment here taking off the label of this bill, and rightly so. And I would welcome the fact that a number of Labour members stood up and were counted around this. Because I found it particularly abhorrent, the way that a number of ministers kept on suggesting that PIP was actually hinting that there was an out of work benefit.

When actually, in reality, it helps people get into work because they are able to get themselves in the right place, to be able to get out there and work. I feel one of the ministers, he was very Boris Becker, is effectively being used as a human shield. -- Who is effectively, he is effectively being used as a human shield. We have significant questions around this Timms Review. Because while we have massive respect for him as a minister, we feel it is putting the cart before the horse.

We need to make sure there is true engagement with disability groups and also ensure we disability groups and also ensure we are hearing from carers, as part of those groups, and it isn't just a tick box exercise as I have heard from members elsewhere. Coming now to Universal Credit, this still has a two tier element to this. Again, it is this Orwellian approach, where some people who are ill or more equal than others. And that is perverse in the extreme.

So, in the Liberal Democrats, we have real concerns around this. We also liken it to the fact the new economic foundation highlights this will still plunge 50,000 people into poverty. Not what we should be doing in this chamber. So, Chair, in conclusion, we feel this has been irresponsibly rushed through. If we are serious about helping some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, the best way to do it is engage with them, take time, and get the right results for them. And, as the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, I would like to particular highlights amendment 12, in NC NC2, which gives the due diligence we deserve, otherwise I would encourage colleagues to vote against this bill tonight.

Thank you, Chair.
17:35
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
I call the shadow minister. Chair. So, here we are, they have had 15 years, 14 years complaining about welfare reform, while the Conservative government fixed a catastrophic mess of the unemployment benefits that we inherited. The alphabetic spaghetti of welfare, that we had in 2010, if any of those members can remember it. All those benefit traps we fixed, introducing make work pay, supporting people into jobs, so our first decade in our time in government, people canonically active in every single year of the 2010s, we had the lowest number since records began, then COVID hit.

Also people clamouring for more welfare at the end of that period. I will give way to the honourable lady in one moment. After the COVID incident, as we left office, we were introducing forms to fix the health and disability benefits. All of it opposed every step of the way by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

party opposite. I give way. Does the honourable member really believe that anyone could truly believe that anyone could truly think that after the 14 years of the last government led to a 17% pay gap last government led to a 17% pay gap that their government really did make sure that disabled people were in fact well-paid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in fact well-paid. Well, Madam Chair, the fact is, in our time in government, we increase the number of disabled people in work significantly. 2 people in work significantly. 2 million more disabled people in work at the end of our time in government than before. So, I am afraid than before. So, I am afraid than before. So, I am afraid across... Most of the regret about our time in government, I was a critic myself, but on welfare, critic myself, but on welfare, throughout our time in government, we have a very proud record of improving a broken system that we improving a broken system that we inherited.

So, here we finally are, a year into their time in government, they have had all this time to come up with a plan, and we time to come up with a plan, and we have absolutely nothing. So, clause five of the building have some changes. To the system. But they are changes. To the system. But they are going to scrap that today, and I want to pay tribute to the rebels on the benches opposite finding their voice, showing what Parliament can do. I particularly pay tribute to the honourable lady for York Central, the real Prime Minister, sitting on the real front bench.

I respect and honour them all. That is for this front bench, they are chopping the bill's name in half. Nothing to do with PIP at all for we have no reform to welfare, certainly no savings. The fact is this is now a spending bill, it is not a savings bill, it is a spending bill. If you look at the impact assessment that has come out, I think it's the third we have had in the last three weeks, if you add up the savings from cutting UC health, that is little over 5 billion, then you minus the cost of raising the standard allowance, little over 5 billion, what do you get? You get £120 million extra cost over the next four years, plus the £1 billion extra employment support, so that is a labour's idea, of saving money on welfare.

Actually spending more of the end of this process. And have also spent the money they thought they were saving for the PIP changes before they did a U-turn. Madam Chair, even now, they are on a wing and a prayer financially. So the tottering minister is relying on to hold up her sums. It assumes that the on floater benefits will fall half back to their 2019 levels, but this Parliament. If they don't do that, there is another £12 billion the Chancellor will have to fine, but why will you claim is reduced under this government? They are still a £50 a week incentive, there is no reform to PIP for another year, the Minister said, his famous eponymous review, it is not aimed at saving money anyway, then the four Aberdeen North earlier challenged him to confirm that.

-- the Member for Aberdeen North. There will be no savings for his review. Meanwhile, Madam Chair, the UK is haemorrhaging jobs, thanks to the national insurance rise. And we have got the employment rights bill coming down the track, the OBR forecast didn't even include in its forecast the likely impact of the unemployment bill that they are introducing, that is something we can look forward to in the autumn. So, Madam Chair, we are in a deep fiscal hole and of course, we welfare reform, in fact, we knew welfare cuts and that is why we wanted to support the government when they set out their intentions.

And we said we would support the bill, if they reduce the spending, got more people into work, and pledged for no new taxes, but they didn't do any of that. So, we don't support the bill. We do have a further set of proposals forced my honourable friend from Hendon challenged me to come up with some actual alternatives, so we are doing that. First, Amendment 45, which will improve the quality of the assessments, there is a bigger piece of work and I do welcome the fact the government is looking closely at the process of assessments.

Right now, we could make one clear, simple improvement. In 2019, 84% of PIP assessments were conducted face-to- face full supply show, it was 5%. That was a COVID change, that was absolutely a COVID change, that simply wasn't change in time, I totally agree. The fact is, they work from home culture took off at DWP and it does need to change, I recognise that, why isn't this government doing that? The result of the system we had which is not being changed by this bill is that people are at the mercy of some distant faceless assessor on the end of the phone.

Of course, there will be people who cannot manage a face-to- face assessment and we would authorise the Secretary of State to help in those circumstances. And it is a change we were introducing and I am glad they are sticking with it, but for the great majority of cases, we have to get back to those face- to-face assessments, for the sake of the claimants as well as the taxpayer for the second, Amendment 50, we have a thousand new PIP claims a day, doubled since COVID, more than half the increase is in mental health cases.

For a unity health, it's more like three quarters. Of course, stress is real in our society and rising, I do not disparage the reality of many of these claims, but as the Minister himself has said, the incidents of disability in our society is rising by 17% benefit claims are rising by 34%, and for some of the less severe mental health claims, it is far worse. Madam Chair, anxiety disorders, January 2020, there were 7,000 claims for people with anxiety disorders. This year it was 31,000.

In 2020, January 2020, 155,000. Now, 365,004 anxiety and depressive disorders mixed. For autism, 60,000, gone to 183,000. And the honourable member mentioned ADHD, that has gone from 29,000 to 115,000, over the from 29,000 to 115,000, over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last five years. Happy to give way. I wonder whether the shadow minister realises that according to minister realises that according to the DWP's own statistics, the fraud

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the DWP's own statistics, the fraud rate for PIP is 0.2%. I just do not want him to feel like a mug. I am not talking about specific

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not talking about specific fraud, these have been given. The assessment is trusting them to be assessment is trusting them to be eligible. There is no attempt for the system, we have created a system whereby one is incentivised to seek

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whereby one is incentivised to seek higher and more expensive claims. Happy to give way. Make sure the language is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make sure the language is parliamentary and respectful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to pull up the shadow minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years? And thus, there ADHD for many years? And thus, there is a backlog of many years of women now accessing their rights to get ADHD, and like me, many women were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders, instead of ADHD.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anxiety disorders, instead of ADHD. I am sure the honourable lady is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sure the honourable lady is right. Those disorders have also increased extraordinary in recent years and I am struck by the point she made in her speech, many people with ADHD could benefit from the workplace, could be in work and need to be supported for that. It is not what we are consigning so many people to a life on the sofa with the curtains drawn, toll-free have no value, no condition to make, and will receive no help, we have had 40,000 more people on PIP last year because of dyslexia, twice the number from before COVID.

10,000 for OCD, that number has doubled. I just want to acknowledge what the charity Might have said about this, they want to increase benefits. They have said what people with mental health conditions need is a decent support, proper employment programs and flexible workplaces, that's what is needed for top let me finish with my last amendment, which is the other place, we can look for real savings, foreign nationals claiming health and disability benefits for top and I'm very aware that many Visas have no recourse to public funds, but people with indefinite leave to remain do have a cause for public funds, then we have 800,000 people likely to claim indefinite leave to remain in this parliament for the pretty not have enough data from the DWP, so I would urge the government to have more transparent about the information received, but we do believe, on the basis of the information we have, some hundreds of thousands of people are in this country, claiming PIP and UC health who are foreign nationals.

I don't include EU citizens by the way. It is not part of the contract we make with people who come into this country, they are given Visas on this option they will support themselves. Madam Chair, every power spent on benefits, for someone who could be supported into work, is a pound less for someone else who cannot work on who can never work and who deserves all of our sympathy and support, we cannot wait another year for this dithering hamstring government to come forward with the changes we need.

Our amendments offer a path to a better system that is fair for claimants and taxpayers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I commend them to the House. Madam Chair, I thank everybody
17:46
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. If who has spoken in this debate. If you can work, you should, my honourable friend, the member for Hendon, is absolute right. To remind the House of that principle underpinning the creation of the welfare state by the Labour government. If you need help to work, the government should provide it, those who cannot work, must be able to live with dignity. Those other pencils underpinning what we other pencils underpinning what we The UK in the G-7 has a lower rate of unemployment we had before the pandemic.

My honourable friends from Ealing Southall, Hendon are absolutely right to point out this is a uniquely UK problem. In a large measure it is because of the tracks in the Universal Credit system -- traps in the Universal Credit system this bill is addressing. The system needs to be fixed and it is urgent to get on and do it. My honourable friend, the member for urban fleet is absolutely right delay is not the answer. The delay and called for by the Conservatives is not the right way forward.

Abandoning people in the way the system has for years has been catastrophic, 2.8 million people now out of work on health and disability benefits. Hundreds of thousands wanting to be back in work and saying they could be in work if only they have the support to get back into a job. We are determined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to provide them with that support. I give way to my honourable friend. Thank you. When this bill started

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. When this bill started its life, the government was its life, the government was advocating for cuts to PIP claimants and UCL claimants now and in the future. They conceded now was not future. They conceded now was not right and it was only the future. Then they conceded it should not be Then they conceded it should not be PIP claimants of the future. Leaving only UC health claimants in the only UC health claimants in the future. Does my right honourable friend understand the anxiety and friend understand the anxiety and confusion this is causing people in the disabled community and would it not be better to pause and wait for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the review and do it properly. No because reform is urgently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do. change and that is what we must do. It is particularly scandalous the system gives up on young people in system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers. Really one million not in, education or training. My honourable friend for training. My honourable friend for Peterborough is absolutely right to highlight that point. We need to get on and tackle the disability employment gap.

The bill addresses the severe work disincentives in Universal Credit, it protects those who do never expect to work from Universal Credit reassessment. And the poverty impact assessment that has now been published basically at the 50,000 children being lifted out of poverty. We are rebalancing support you. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am grateful for his generosity. Which I know he always shows in this chamber. Based on the shows in this chamber. Based on the poverty assessments he now says 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. But because taken out of poverty. But because this decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the chancellors the fiscal impact of the chancellors budget -- Budget, I asked him there were £5 million worth of savings and were £5 million worth of savings and then 2.5 billion and then he said he had costed his decisions now.

It would have put an extra 50,000 would have put an extra 50,000 children into put -- into poverty. How much extra will these measures now he is capitulated cost the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taxpayer? I am happy to give him the same and I gave him when he asked me this and I gave him when he asked me this question last week. Which is the answer the Fibrus will be published by the OBR in the usual way. -- The figures will be published by the OBR figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way. A lot of measures moved in this debate relate clause 5 which as the House knows we are removing with government amendment for so the bill will make no changes for so the bill will make no changes to PIP.

Parallel amendments to schedule two cover Northern Ireland and as has been pointed out in the and as has been pointed out in the debate, meant amendment five changes the bill name to Universal Credit the bill name to Universal Credit act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. Opposition amendment 45 therefore on face-to-face assessments no longer fits in the bill. I would say to the shadow Minister we are going to indeed need to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments.

number of face-to-face assessments. The point which he needs to recognise is that should have been done after the pandemic. It was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems. I am very grateful Madam chair, to my honourable friend, the member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. The giving the House in her new clause a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them.

Let me set out my thinking now. In response to my honourable friends new clause. I accept section 1 of her new clause, in the words of the UN can -- convention article 43 and it has featured a bit in this debate, others have referred to it, to quote Article 4 three of the convention we should closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities in carrying out the review. I accept the point my honourable friend is making that is what coproduction entails.

Let me just make a little bit more headway. As she and I have discussed, I do not agree the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year. And with no four-point threshold I do not think it is in anyone's interest to rush it. I accept her proposal in section 4 of her new clause for a group to coproduce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it.

I will chair the group, we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings. Around a dozen members with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics. My honourable friend has made helpful suggestions for who some of those people might be. We will want disabled Parliamentary representation involved in the process as well. And arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her, the majority of group members need to be disabled people or representatives of Disabled People's Organisations.

And they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many aspects of the clause. And for his assurances from the Dispatch Box. I assurances from the Dispatch Box. I will not be moving new clause 11 if he can offer further assurances he can offer further assurances there will be sufficient link between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent recommendations and subsequent legislation on PIP to ensure accountability and the voices of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled people are heard? I am grateful to my honourable friend. I can give her that friend. I can give her that assurance. The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows. On Parliament's handling... I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

handling... I will give way. Thank you. I really welcome the fact disabled groups are going to be fact disabled groups are going to be meaningfully engaged according to law. I look forward to seeing the full details of that. How will full details of that. How will carers groups be engaged as well? I would welcome some assurance around

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. Thank you. He raises that point very reasonably in the debate and that is certainly something we need to certainly something we need to consider as well. On Parliament's handling... I will give way once more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. It is welcome to hear the commitment to working with disabled people. You will know the difference between consultation and coproduction is that every participant has to have a veto of participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to coproduce. Otherwise with the greatest will in the world it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us that assurance disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals to engage the consultation process?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What we will be aiming for is a consensus amongst all of those taking part and that is what I hope we will achieve. On Parliament's handling, I will not give way. On Parliament's handling of the review Parliament's handling of the review outcome which is also raised in my honourable friends new clause, I would envisage a ministerial oral statement and I can commit on behalf statement and I can commit on behalf of the government we will then be -- there will then be a general debate there will then be a general debate on it in government time and the legislation to implement the review outcome will not be brought forward until that has happened.

Not just at until that has happened. Not just at the moment. In clause 1 the bill introduces the first ever sustained introduces the first ever sustained above inflation rise to the Universal Credit standard allowance. The previous government ran The previous government ran Universal Credit down, they did not Universal Credit down, they did not operate it, they froze it, forcing mass dependence on food banks. The increase is accompanied by reduction increase is accompanied by reduction as has been debated in the health topic for most new claimants.

Set topic for most new claimants. Set out in clause 2. Clause 3 set out the health top up would be frozen the health top up would be frozen until 2029/30 and for those with the most severe lifelong conditions or near the end-of-life, the government amendment means for existing claimants the standard allowance plus health top up will rise at least in line with inflation up to 2029/30. For existing claimants. That also applies to people with severe, lifelong conditions that we do not ever expect to work and those near the end of life.

Clause 4 and the amendment to it mirror the Universal Credit changes. The bill will protect existing claimants in a very powerful way, including those with fluctuating health conditions. with fluctuating health conditions. But move decisively to the more proactive pro work system. That is what we need and the protection for those on Universal Credit... Let me just let let me just make a little bit more headway. The protection of Universal Credit who are on the current rate, if they go into work they are likely dependent on the income to stay on Universal Credit so that protection will continue while they are in work.

If their income rises to the level when they are lifted off Universal Credit then the six months they retain that protection. And if they go back they return to their original rate. Some very strong protection there. Some arrangements seek to change the Universal Credit arrangements. The increased the standard allowance. The first permanent real terms increase is the headline for out of work benefits for decades. It is a very important step forward as well. My honourable friend highlighted balancing that with a lower health topic for most new claims is key -- top up for most new claims is key...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. We were told this was going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We were told this was going to bring a £5 billion saving and then a £2.5 billion saving, is it in order... Is that in order?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order... Is that in order? Well the Minister ensure the Universal Credit health element Universal Credit health element forms part of the coproduce Timms review when reviewing the assessment review when reviewing the assessment process. As you see health element will be assessed under the new PIP assessment. Furthermore can we assessment. Furthermore can we ensure all disability benefits are in school so we can truly get an assessment process fit for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future? Should it is like the Green Paper set out our PIP proposal as well as the gateway to universal health the gateway to universal health credit top up giving indeed a broader role. Our aim is broader role. Our aim is specifically a co-produced benefit assessment. If that works well, there may well be a strong case to apply the same approach and maybe apply the same approach and maybe even using the same or similar group to other challenges. Perhaps including other aspects of the health and disability benefits health and disability benefits system.

That would need to follow successful completion of the task immediately in hand. Let me just finally make an important point that was made in the debate by my honourable friend, the member for Dunfermline and others. The severe conditions criteria in the bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present. That is and guidance, it is being moved in this bill into legislation. It does take into account Parkinson's and MS because people need to meet the descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable timeframe.

And so I can give a very firm assurance to those who are concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those on fluctuating conditions. The word constantly here refers and I have said this in my intervention earlier, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times. Not to somebody's symptoms. This bill begins to repair a broken system that holds people back by removing work disincentives from Universal Credit. We will provide record employment support for disabled people, people with health

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impairments. Order, order. Under the order of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. Under the order of the House, first of July I must now put the question necessary to bring proceedings to a closure. The question is amendment 39 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No".
18:01
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is That The question is That can The question is That can people be seated if they are in the be seated if they are in the chamber. Mr Gardner, that applies to you as well. The question is as on you as well. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the that opinion, say, "Aye".

Of the Tel is for The ayes Tel is for The ayes... Tel is for The ayes... (Reads).

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 35. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 469. The ayes to the right, 35. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 35. The noes to the left, 469. The noes have noes to the left, 469. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock! We now it. The noes have it. Unlock! We now come to government amendment one, to clause 1. I called the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment one formally. The question is amendment one be made. As many as are of that made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to The ayes have it. We now come to amendment 52 clause 1 -- amendment 50, clause 1. It has been selected for separate decision. I ask the opposition spokesperson to move the amendment formally.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division! Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes Rebecca Paul and Rebecca Smith. Tellers for the noes, Gen Kitchen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locked Locked the Locked the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locked the doors. -- Locked the doors. -- Lock Locked the doors. -- Lock the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 103. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 103. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 416. The ayes to the right, 103. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 103. The noes to the left, 416. The noes have noes to the left, 416. The noes have The question is that clause one as The question is that clause one as amended standard part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment two, clause two, I called the Minister to move amendment to formally.

The question is amendment formally. The question is amendment to be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to amendment 12 to clause two, selected for separate decision. I called for separate decision. I called Steve Darling to move amendment 12

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. Moved formally. The question is amendment 12 B made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated Colleagues should be seated if they are in the chamber. Colleagues should be seated if they are in... should be seated if they are in... Eastwood. The question is as on of the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The tellers for the Isa Charlie Maynard and Bobby, the tellers for the no are Martin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 105, The noes to the left, 370.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 370. The ayes to the right, 105, The noes to the left, 370. The noes have noes to the left, 370. The noes have it, The noes have it, unlock. The it, The noes have it, unlock. The question is that clause two, as amended, and clause three, standard part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues, once Colleagues, once again Colleagues, once again should Colleagues, once again should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues, once again should be seated. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes, Gen Kitchen and Martin McCluskey. Tellers for the noes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locked Locked the Locked the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 335. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 335. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 335. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 335. The The ayes to the right, 335. The noes to the left, 135. The ayes have it. to the left, 135. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to government amendment three to clause 4. I call the Minister to to clause 4. I call the Minister to move amendment three formally. The move amendment three formally. The question is amendment three be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye".

Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is clause 4 as amended stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to amendment 45 to clause 5. Which has been selected for separate decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been selected for separate decision. I called the opposition spokesperson to move amendment 45 formally. I beg to move. The question is amendment 45 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues should be Colleagues should be not Colleagues should be not getting up, sitting down would be better. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes Rebecca Paul and Rebecca Smith. Tellers for the noes, Anna Turley Tellers for the noes, Anna Turley

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 175. The noes to the left,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

401. The ayes to the right, 175. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 175. The noes to the left, 401. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock! The question is that clause five question is that clause five standard part of the bell, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The noes have Of the contrary, "No". The noes have it. The noes have it. The question is that clause six standard part of the bill.

As many as are of that the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment five, clause seven, I called the Minister to move amendment five formally. The amendment five formally. The question is amendment 5B made. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.

The ayes have it. The question is that clause seven is amended to start part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government new clause one, call the Minister to move new clause one. The question is government new clause one stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

We now continue clause eight, I called John McDonald to move you clause eight. The question is new clause eight be added to the Belfast As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It It is It is that It is that time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is that time again, colleagues. Where you are seated because you haven't got through fast because you haven't got through fast enough. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. Ayes to the right, 130. The noes to the left, 4-3-3.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the left, 4-3-3. The ayes to the right, 130. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 130. The noes to the left, 4-3-3. The noes noes to the left, 4-3-3. The noes We now come to We now come to amendment We now come to amendment 38, schedule 1 which has been selected for separate decision. I called Rachael Maskell to move amendment 38 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally. The question is amendment 38 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". The noes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues should be seated Colleagues should be seated if they are in the chamber. Colleagues they are in the chamber. Colleagues who are in the chamber need to be who are in the chamber need to be seated. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 149. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 149. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left of the 330. -- 334. The ayes to the right, 149. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 149. The noes to the left, 334. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock! The question is that schedule one be the first schedule to the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment six to 10, I government amendment six to 10, I call the Minister to move formally. The question is amendment six to 10 The question is amendment six to 10 The question is amendment six to 10 be made, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye".

Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The question is scheduled to, as amended, be the second schedule to amended, be the second schedule to the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment 11, to the title. I called the Minister to move amendment 11 formally. The question is amendment 11 being made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No".

The ayes have Order, Order, whip Order, whip to Order, whip to report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to report the committee has gone through the bill and directly report the same with amendments and report the same with amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has amended the title. Order of the House, first of July, we now proceed directly to consideration for no amendments to consideration, minister to move,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

third reading formally. I beg to move. Under the order of the House, first of July, I must now pose the question on third reading. The question is the bill now be read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right back, 346.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right back, 346. , 242. The ayes to the right, 336. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 336. The noes to the left, 242. The ayes have noes to the left, 242. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Now it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Now that we have dispatched with that bit of business do Ministers want to We We now We now come We now come to We now come to motion We now come to motion number We now come to motion number four We now come to motion number four on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to motion number four on electricity. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it. Motion number five on the Business of the House. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it. We now come to petitions. Petition, Doctor Rupa Huq. Thank you. I rise to convey the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to convey the
19:52
19:52
19:54
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Petiton Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition. Thank you. I rise to present a petition on behalf of the inquiry petition on behalf of the inquiry which is seeking access to unreported oral evidence given to my predecessors on the Northern Ireland affairs Select Committee in 2009. The petition declares the independent statutory inquiry into the Omagh bombing includes within its scope, the allocation an allegation made by Norman Baxter, former senior investigating Officer into the Omagh his investigation to the northern islands -- Northern Ireland select affairs committee...

Banbridge on 1 August 1998 and Lisbon on 30 April 1998. Did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of Republican terrorists prior to the Omagh. Further that evidence was evidence taken from Mr Baxter in a private session not reported to the House and that the inquiry is taking advice on the application of article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and would be mindful of the privileges of the House.

The petitioners therefore request the House makes arrangements to supply the transcript of unreported oral evidence taken by Mr Norman Baxter by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in private session on 11 November 2009 to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. The petitioners remain et Inquiry. The petitioners remain et I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move this I beg to move this House I beg to move this House do I beg to move this House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House do now adjourn. I call Liam Byrne on potential merits of a public inquiry potential merits of a public inquiry into the Birmingham pub things in 1974. -- Pub bombings in 1974.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1974. -- Pub bombings in 1974. 51 years ago in 1974 to bombs exploded in the heart of Birmingham
19:56
Liam Byrne Portrait Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
-
at the Mulberry Bush, the Tavern in the Town and 21 lives were lost. 220 people were injured. Families were destroyed, futures were stolen and scars were left but never healed. In those two pubs the Provisional IRA murdered 21 soldiers. James Caddick, John Jones, Stanley Bodden, John Rowlands, Charles Gray, Jimmy Craig, Trevor Thrupp, Michael Beasley, Thomas chaser, Marilyn Marsh, Stephen Wally, Eugene Riley, Desmond Riley, Maureen Roberts, Pamela Harmer, and Hayes, Maxine Hamilton, Harmer, and Hayes, Maxine Hamilton, Lynn Bennett, Jane Davis, Paul Anthony Davis, Neil Tommy Marsh.

All lost their lives. They were sons, daughters, parents, innocent people. Murdered in cold blood in one of Britain's deadliest acts of terrorism. And which today is still the largest worst unsold mass murder in our nations history. To this day Madam Deputy Speaker, not one person has been brought to justice for this atrocity. That is why Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to call for a statutory judge led public inquiry into the Birmingham pub things -- bombings as part of the inquiries act.

We know what happened that night, we know that bombs were planted by provisional members of the IRA, we know the warning was phoned in, it came too late, it was chaotic and it was inadequate and it was fatal. We know the Birmingham six, members of the Irish community were arrested, tortured and convicted of a crime they did not commit. They spent 16 years in prison before the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions in 1991. We know the relatives of the victims were left to grieve in silence and relied to by the police and by politicians alike.

The decades they were shut out of justice. Ignored, patronised, disbelieved. We know in 2019 jury of the resumed inquest concluded the 21 were unlawfully murdered and the IRA was responsible. Yet the jury has not allowed to consider who precisely carried out the bombing. That question of who bombed Birmingham, who murdered the 21, who committed the largest unresolved murder on these islands, that question was ruled out of scope. And so today the truth remains varied. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a wound that has never really healed.

Since 2012 the families of those who died have fought with extraordinary courage and dignity in the search for truth and in the quest for justice. They have not -- knocked on every door, sat with Ministers, they have won legal battles. They have crowd funded representation. They have taken their Westminster -- their case to Westminster, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast. They have formed the group justice for the 21 and together they have done what so many others have failed to do.

They have had the courage and the will to keep the flame of truth alive. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend the honourable member for bringing this important matter to the House. He mentions Julie to the House. He mentions Julie Hamilton. I have met with Julie many Hamilton. I have met with Julie many times over the years. The courage and the tenacity of her and her and the tenacity of her and her fellow campaigners, and I do hope we can reach the point. The Secretary can reach the point. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to the House, he has made the exception for the Fanuc and family, exception for the Fanuc and family, created the hierarchy of victims.

Surely the largest most devastating terrorist act in our nations history terrorist act in our nations history is deserving of equal treatment and therefore a public inquiry should be therefore a public inquiry should be given. Of course there is one organisation who knows who carried out the bombing. They know. That is the IRA themselves. They know the demand of others transparency holds demand of others transparency holds themselves with their wicked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves with their wicked I am grateful for that intervention and his support for Michael tonight, he knows as well as I do that time after time, the families fought and at every turn, they were met with barriers of bureaucracy and broken promises. They were told they couldn't get legal aid, and their case was not part of reconciliation. They were told to wait until West Midlands police pursued leads that went precisely nowhere. They were told again and again to be quiet, but they will not be quiet, and this House should not sit quiet while their search for justice is unfinished.

I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I commend the honourable gentleman for bringing this forward for he is right to do this forward for he is right to do this. I've met them a number of times, and personally spoke to her, times, and personally spoke to her, in Belfast and also over here. At the time, the innocents who were the time, the innocents who were murdered, there is justice needed, and I would like to see that happen and I would like to see that happen as well.

As a Northern Ireland MP, the troubles are never too far from my mind, the reason the Legacy act never sat well with me is the likes never sat well with me is the likes never sat well with me is the likes of the Kingsmill atrocity, and what was asking for, which I have to say I fully support does the honourable member agree these people haven't member agree these people haven't had closure or justice, and justice for the family.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the family. I am grateful to the honourable member for bringing that to the floor of the House and indeed backing the call I make tonight, backing the call I make tonight, Madame Deputy Speaker. This campaign is not about vengeance, it is about is not about vengeance, it is about one thing alone, it is about truth, justice, the right to truth, the right to accountability. The right right to accountability. The right to know that our system of law and order, our democracy works for all, not just for the powerful.

And so we have to ask in this House, why, after all this time, 51 years, why has there not been a public inquiry? Let us now be clear. I will give way in a moment. This cannot be a desktop review. This cannot merely be an independent panel. It must be a judge led statutory public inquiry, with the full power to summon evidence, to compel witnesses, to hold institutions to account. Why? Because this family, these grieving families, have been failed time and time and time again.

And after 51 years, it is enough. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for bringing this debate to the House and for the powerful case he is making tonight for top does he share making tonight for top does he share the concern that after 51 years, the memories are fading, the documentary memories are fading, the documentary evidence, some of which may not be already secured, in a department or already secured, in a department or the National archives, is at risk of destruction and that the chance of bringing those still living, who bear responsibility for this atrocity, to some measure of accountability, is fading.

We may accountability, is fading. We may not be out of time, but time is running out. Does he agree action is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needed now? That is why I am grateful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is why I am grateful for this call being given time on this floor of the House. I give way. I would like to thank the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the right honourable member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, and South and Solihull North, for securing this really North, for securing this really important debate. Does my right honourable friend agree with me honourable friend agree with me that, for my constituents in Birmingham Erdington, Julie and Paul, relatives of the two victims that have waited for over 50 years, to get justice, enough is enough. The families are still grieving. And we must secure an independent public inquiry, that includes the effective participation of the relatives as a matter of urgency.

So the families can get closure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is exactly right and speaks with such passion and eloquence about this. She knows and eloquence about this. She knows as well as I do how deeply the families feel the pain. Because since the exoneration of the Birmingham six, those men who were tortured, imprisoned, since there tortured, imprisoned, since there exoneration, no one has been held to account for this failure. Since account for this failure. Since 1991, no new suspects have been 1991, no new suspects have been brought to trial.

Since 2019. Even though witnesses admitted they knew who was responsible. No one has been who was responsible. No one has been compelled to testify, despite the compelled to testify, despite the fact that men like Michael Hayes, a former member of the Provisional IRA former member of the Provisional IRA can confess in a BBC interview in 2017 that he accepted collective responsibility for what he called a terrible, terrible tragedy. And in terrible, terrible tragedy. And in evidence to the inquest, it was indicated they had knowledge of those responsible for the murders.

those responsible for the murders. And while the coroner accepted the government legal department assurances that relevant documents had been exposed to a wide held else had been exposed to a wide held else remain. In the Foreign Office, and the Ministry of Defence, it was in fact made available.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right honourable member for giving way and can I member for giving way and can I commend him for securing this important enjoyment debate. More than half a century has passed. And there seems to be consecutive governments, have not provided that closure, not just for the victims closure, not just for the victims and their families, but also for those who are falsely convicted and their families, does the right honourable member believe that it is a lack of political, as opposed to anything else, when it comes to how anything else, when it comes to how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to get a public inquiry. He is right in his thrust of the arguments, and I will come in dimensions and reflections on that dimensions and reflections on that in just a moment. Because we know there are documents that were not there are documents that were not provided to the inquest. We know that key individuals involved have died. But we also know there are died. But we also know there are allegations that at least two of those responsible are still alive and living free and their names can and living free and their names can be found in books which are in the be found in books which are in the House of Commons Library.

As my honourable friend for Northfield said, years passed, memories fade, witnesses die, the trial of truth witnesses die, the trial of truth will go cold. That is why it is time to act now. Let's look at the facts. This is the largest unresolved mass murder in British history. No statutory in has ever been launched into what happened. No one from the state has ever been held accountable for the failings of the investigation or the imprisonment of the innocent or the denial of justice to the families for stubborn by contrast, we in this House, the urging of this House, we have ensured the victims of Hillsborough, infected blood, Grenfell, Windrush, the post office, we ensured quite rightly that we got to the bottom of what happened, what caused the pain of so many of those victims.

But why not Birmingham? Why are the people of Birmingham not being given justice? That they deserve. Madame Deputy Speaker, it is time we send a message from this House there can be no more excuses. A public inquiry is not just a legal tool, it is act of conscience, it is how democracy, it is how we tell the victims families that they matter, crucially how we learn, because if we cannot learn lessons from the past, the risk is we repeat that.

We have said often in this House that justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 51 years since that terrible night 51 years of injustice. 51 years of doors close and backs turned. I say that as long enough. I want to be very clear with the House tonight about what it is we are seeking. We are seeking a statutory public inquiry under section 1, The Inquiries Act 2005, we are seeking a judge led progress with full legal powers to compel witnesses and evidence, an inquiry that is independent, resource to ensure effective participation of the families.

An inquiry that asks openly, without constraint, without fear, without favour, who was it that bombed Birmingham? An inquiry that examines the role of the police, criminal justice system and the state. Then and since. We have to be clear, Madame Deputy Speaker, that this crime is not covered by the legislation and the agreements that secured peace in Northern Ireland. And that means something important. It means the Home Secretary has the power, right now, to order this inquiry. There is no legal obstacle the only question is whether there is the political will.

In April 2024, there were MPs who wrote to the secretary for this wrote to the secretary for this inquiry. On the anniversary, the call was renewed and backed by a cross-party group of MPs and males and lawyers and campaigners. I wrote again to the Home Secretary in spring this year. I have not yet had an answer about a decision on whether an inquiry will be launched. And that is why I have asked for this debate tonight. I am not asking for special treatment.

I am asking for equal treatment. For Birmingham to be given justice that has been offered to the victims of so many scandals. Where we have set up inquiries to get to the bottom of inquiries to get to the bottom of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the truth. Of course. I found the right honourable member for bringing forward such an important debate and like others important debate and like others have said, this is actually crucial. I added my name to those calls in November last year, that there would November last year, that there would be an inquiry for the families, for the victims. And also for the city. This has been a cloud that has covered Birmingham for 51 years now. covered Birmingham for 51 years now.

And I wonder if the right honourable member reflects on what signal, what message does it send, that we are message does it send, that we are still waiting therefore, what is it they can believe in if they cannot get the truth they are waiting for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get the truth they are waiting for. Absolutely right. This is about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely right. This is about the past, the truth, justice, but she is right to say it is also about the future. This is about whether we the future. This is about whether we come in this House, believe in justice, without exception. Justice without delay. Justice that does not without delay. Justice that does not stop at the doors of power. And it is whether the government of this country will look the people of country will look the people of Birmingham in the IN assay 'we hear Birmingham in the IN assay 'we hear you, we see you, we believe you, and we will not rest until you get the answers that you deserve.' Madam answers that you deserve.' Madam speaker, let us honour the memory of those 21 souls who never came home that night.

Let's stand with their families and speak for a city that is still scarred by the silence. I don't long last, do what we should have done decades ago. Let's hold a public inquiry to the Birmingham pub bombings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Minister. Madame Deputy Speaker, can I
20:13
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madame Deputy Speaker, can I start by commending my right honourable friend for securing this debate. He is a very long-standing debate. He is a very long-standing member of this House and I know this is an issue of huge importance for him, and his constituency, as well as other members representing Birmingham right across this House. I think he has made his case passionately. And powerfully. At the Home Secretary and I have heard what he has just say, contributions from other members, and we are grateful for them.

I will respond to the points that have been made. At first, I want to say something about the bombings themselves. Because we must never lose sight of the fact the bombs planted in the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town public houses in Birmingham, on 21 November, 1974, claimed 21 lives, injured over 200 others, and caused untold devastation and pain. The harm caused by these brutal attacks went far beyond those killed and injured. It continues to affect parents, children, siblings, and friends to this day.

Over half a century has now passed since the bombings, but the impacts of these atrocities remain vivid and raw. Not just in Birmingham, but in the national psyche. Above all, Madame Deputy Speaker, we think of the victims and their families. And I do want to recognise the work of the justice for the 21 campaign, who continue to powerfully advocate for all of those affected and to seek justice for their loved ones. And I acknowledge their long-standing request for the establishment of a public inquiry into the bombings.

The Home Secretary is considering advice and is determined to provide an answer to the families and victims as soon as possible. And I am sure that members will understand that we will ensure the families are the first to hear the outcome. My right honourable friend mentioned in his speech that the Birmingham pub bombings are not covered by the Northern Ireland Troubles era. -- Legacy reconciliation act. He is right inquiry is not prevented by the act, it does not prevent any public inquiry taking place, but I want to emphasise the Birmingham pub bombings are absolutely in scope of the legacy act and would be eligible for an investigation led by the Independent, reconciliation and information recovery, which the act created.

I have full confidence that the commission and its team of dedicated staff, already sufficient powers, resources and expertise, to support the families in the process of seeking answers to their questions. Indeed, the commission is already investigating the Guildford

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very glad the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy act. Can he reassure the House the Can he reassure the House the government in its proposals to repeal the legacy act is not going repeal the legacy act is not going to lose that opportunity of having the trade offers -- the trade off as it were between prosecution and it were between prosecution and truth recovery, which is what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis of the legacy act was was? The right honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right honourable gentleman who is himself a very experienced member of this House will know I'm stood next to the Secretary of State stood next to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. And I hope you will understand the work of the will understand the work of the previous government which was no doubt well-intentioned did not provide a solution that had the provide a solution that had the support of political party Northern Ireland. Nor did it have the support Ireland.

Nor did it have the support of both ventures and those who have suffered the impact of terrorism. I can give him an absolute assurance the Secretary of State working with colleagues right across the government will do everything they possibly can to put in place a solution and a settlement that is able to attract wider support. I will give way one more time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is very kind of him to give way one more time. Can I urge Ministers not to be blinded by what Ministers not to be blinded by what political parties say in Northern Ireland. Because the truth of the Ireland. Because the truth of the matter is they have to take certain positions, usually ones which favour their side and disfavour the other their side and disfavour the other ones. The prospect of getting all those parties to agree on something those parties to agree on something like this is minute and that is why the legacy act cuts through all of that in the same way Nelson Mandela came up with a similar solution that worked in South Africa.

worked in South Africa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to him. I hope you would accept none of the political party in Northern Ireland were able to support the previous to support the previous arrangements. I know he understands the complexities of this matter and the complexities of this matter and I hope you will see this government is acting in good faith. And is attempting to put in place an arrangement that can attract the arrangement that can attract the widespread support I think is required. I was making the point the options for the family to refer or for families to refer the case to for families to refer the case to the commission is available and I encourage any victims, survivor or family member affected by the Troubles to give consideration to the commission in their search for answers.

A number of investigations have been conducted over the 50 years since the bombings. Including West Midlands Police investigations between 2012 and 2014. And 2019 and 2023. As well as coronial inquests which concluded in 2019. Like so many incidents that occurred during the Troubles, the prospect of criminal justice outcomes is now increasingly unlikely. The families of the bereaved in Birmingham like so many others completely understandably, continue to seek the information and accountability they deserve. My right honourable friend raised the desire by the families for the role of the police and the Criminal Justice System to be investigated as part of any public inquiry.

As honourable members will be aware, the Independent Office for Police Conduct is a respected and well tested forum for such matters. As a Northern Ireland veteran myself I know the troubles were a devastating time for the whole nation. Such that 25 years on from the passing of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement the impact lives on. Each tragedy has far-reaching and long-standing effects on victims, survivors and communities around them. The work undertaken by all of those who sought to end the Troubles has helped prevent further such tragedies and it is important we seek to remain united across this House in our condemnation of anyone who seeks to take us back to those times.

The bombings in Birmingham killed or injured innocent people who happened to be in a particular place when heinous acts were perpetrated. Today and always we mourn the dead and hold their loved ones in our thoughts and we think too of the survivors in all of those who were affected. Madam Deputy Speaker I want to finish thanking my right honourable friend for securing the debate and all of the other members who have contributed to it. Terrorist attacks have terrible and far-reaching consequences on individuals, communities and our society as a whole.

We must stand united to combat terrorism whether that is driven by political, religious or ideological causes. This government and the people of this country are united in our condemnation of those who inflict violence on our streets. The Birmingham pub bombings were brutal moment in our history. In the history of that great city and of our country. A day when 21 lives were cruelly snatched away and hundreds more changed forever. We understand the devastation caused by these horrific attacks continues for people to this day.

And more than 50 years later the fact their quest for answers and justice goes on must be unbelievably distressing. As I have said we recognise the frustration this causes yet these are decisions that need to be taken incredibly carefully. The government will respond to the request for a public inquiry as soon as possible. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the utmost sympathy for the bereaved and for the survivors. Their experience for over 50 years has been deeply painful and I am sure honourable and right honourable members right across this House continue to hold them in their thoughts and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prayers. The question is this House do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". The ayes have
20:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Scotland
-

20:29
20:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Scotland
-

20:29
20:29
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page