Commons Chamber

Tuesday 10th February 2026

(began 1 month, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
None Portrait Q8. What steps he is taking to support the green energy sector in the North East. (907792)
-

Chairman.
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
None Portrait Q13. What estimate he has made of the potential impact of the Contracts for Difference Clean Industry Bonus on the number of clean energy jobs. (907797)
-

Sir Mark Hendrick number 13, Mr. speaker.
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Defence, providing secure data integration, analytics and AI platforms that help to support platforms that help to support operational planning and decision making. In 2022, the conservative government signed a three year enterprise agreement with Palantir. In light of the growing significance of faster operational decision making and the impact this decision making and the impact this technology has had in operations, including in Ukraine, this government negotiated a new enterprise agreement to update the enterprise agreement to update the one signed in 2022, that was published in a transparency note in December last year, as part of the development of the new enterprise agreement, the Mod negotiated a strategic partnership with Palantir last September.

The Spey reaffirms the strong relationship developed between UK defence and Palantir over the past decade. It includes new commitments that this government secured from Palantir, including 1.5 billion of investment into the UK, a new UK defence tech SME mentoring scheme to help companies grow and access the US market, and a commitment that London is to be the company's European Defence Headquarters. Mr. speaker, when the government took over what the Tory started in 2022, but we made it work better for Britain and better for our forces.

And let me be clear, as the defence secretary has said, the contract was his decision and his decision alone. Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract. The deal we struck with Palantir is going to significantly reinforce the innovation of our forces, and it will reinforce the safety of this country as we move towards warfighting readiness.
12:44
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
So thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr. Speaker. And before turning to the detail, the Madison scandal is truly shocking. And when debating these matters, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the victims of Epstein's crimes. Mr. speaker, following Peter Mandelson sacking as US ambassador, serious questions surrounding his influence on Mod contracts have emerged and upon which we have had no meaningful answers. Specifically, the Mod signed a contract with US firm Palantir in December 2025 worth £240 million.

Critically, at a time when UK defence companies are struggling for orders from their own government, this contract did not involve a competition with British firms, but was granted to a US company by director Ward. Why was that? For the record, this is not about Palantir or any other US company and from my time as Defence Procurement Minister, I recognise the huge mutual gain to us and our closest ally that results from our strong defence relationship. It is also true that many contracts in the Mod are rightly lit on a single source basis.

Rather, this is about transparency above all. The question is to what extent Peter Mandelson and his firm Global Counsel, in which at the time he was a controlling shareholder, benefited from privileged access not available to potential UK competitors, which was used to deliver a quarter of £1 billion defence contract to a client of Global Council without competition. So can the Minister tell us regarding the meeting between the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson, and Palantir in February 2025, in Washington, DC? Is it true that no minutes were taken? And if not, why not? Crucially, at the time of the meeting, was the Prime Minister aware that Palantir was a client of Mandelson's firm? He must answer that.

Also, in the build up to the US state visit, we understand that Peter Mandelson lobbied the UK government for deliverables. Will the Minister commit to publishing what those deliverables were and if they involved any clients of Global Council? Finally, Mr. Speaker, on actions to take, given the public interest in this matter, will defence Ministers follow the lead of the Health Secretary and publish all their correspondence with Peter Mandelson? In addition, in the spirit of the humble address, will the government publish all relevant material in relation to this contract award as part of the Mandelson files? Mandelson files?
12:47
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my first answer, Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract. It was a decision made by the Secretary of State and his decision alone. As the shadow Secretary of State well knows, this enterprise agreement builds on the one that conservative Ministers signed with Palantir back in 2022. And he knows that the Mod uses Palantir tools and technology on a daily basis to support the operations and wider data analytics.

I'm sure he is not suggesting that we shouldn't be maintaining access to those vital capabilities. Is he saying that his government was wrong to formalise that relationship with Palantir in their 2022 agreement? I don't think he is. I think it is really important that I that we publish the information. Last time I was in Washington, unfortunately, the then ambassador was not available to meet or to be there for when I was there. But the Prime Minister has been clear at Dispatch Box that the public and the House deserve transparency, and we intend to publish as much material as we can as soon as reasonably possible.

The Cabinet Office is working with the Met Police and the Parliament and Parliament's intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the release of any documents do not prejudice the met investigation or the UK's national security and international relations. The process for doing that is underway. In addition to the other actions, the Prime Minister has already taken.
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:21
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.
-

frontbench to swap over. >> Which brings. >> Us to an urgent question, Doctor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us to an urgent question, Doctor Kieran Mullan. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. To ask the Minister to make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the courts desk court Reporting Data Archive. Mr.
13:21
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
I am committed, as is this government, to greater transparency in our justice system as I am, to putting the dignity of victims first. As Courts Minister, I have a concern that people should know what goes on in our courts. It's a way of enhancing transparency. It's a way of informing and educating the public. And it's why the Her Majesty's His Majesty's Court Service has made and continues to make information available to accredited journalists so that they can keep the public informed of what is taking place in our courts.

Since 2020, a company called Courts Desk entered into an arrangement with His Majesty's Court Service, conducting a pilot and providing a new service which was agreed under the previous government. And what that did was to essentially take some of the data that we routinely provide and continue to provide at this moment to journalists and provide that and provide that to journalists in a more accessible and easier to search form. HMCTS was indeed working to expand and improve the service by creating a new data license agreement with Court Desk and others to expand access to justice.

And it was in the context and in the course of the arrangement with Courts Desk, that data protection issues came to light. What has arisen is that this private company courts desk has been sharing private, personal, legally sensitive information with a third party AI company that includes potentially the addresses, the dates of birth of defendants and victims. And this is a direct breach of our agreement with them. Indeed, the agreement that the party opposite negotiated, and I believe that everybody in this House would agree it is an agreement that should be upheld because, of course, government takes its responsibilities over data protection seriously.

And it's for that reason that we decided to stop sharing data with Courts Desk, a company who was prepared to put victims personal data at risk and instructed them to remove it from their digital platform. This is about preserving dignity for those who are in our justice system, be they those accused of crime or victims going through the court process. And I know that the whole House will agree with me that that is an incredibly important issue. So let me be clear.

The cessation of our agreement with courts desk does not change the information available to the public about what carries on in our courts, and nor does it change the information available to journalists. Now, I recognise that the sort of service courts desk provided was useful for journalists because it collated the information and presented it neatly, and it's for that reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, that officials in my department are continuing to work, as we had always planned to do on an alternative platform, one that allows us to make the information available, but to maintain the guardrails in relation to data protection.

And it's that that I hope to update the House in coming weeks. And as I conclude this decision, order.
13:24
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
The hon. Lady will know that she used.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Here we are again. Not even one week after this government had to week after this government had to be forced into releasing the Mandelson files, looking out for themselves and not victims. We're back. Back with a government that preaches transparency and practices. The opposite. The pattern is clear The opposite. The pattern is clear there won't release migrant crime data. And they fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way, a campaign that was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts, and what is the government now intent on doing? Delete.

Delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it they're worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Bill? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they don't want the public to hear about what results? Can anyone really draw any other conclusion than they have determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies? Madam Deputy Speaker, the Courts Desk Project has been a huge success.

Introduced by the Shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courts rooms. Courts desk reports that more than 1500 journalists have used the platform. It is why so many journalists are rallying in support. And what of the apparent data breach that they are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with courts desk? No they haven't. Not one meeting, not one single meeting despite multiple requests to the Minister. And it isn't just officialdom to blame. The Minister for courts has been written to by Courts Desk and several major media organisations.

She has been told directly how important this system is. A Minister that comes to this House and professes how vital magistrates courts are as part of their plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused to even meet with courts desk and what assessment they have made of the impact of this decision on open justice. Madam Deputy Speaker, delete, delete, delete, stonewall, ignore and deflect. That is the character of this government in its operations.

But we will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.
13:26
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
That I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the bombast we've just heard is actually not just inaccurate, but it's dangerous because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear. There's been no deletion of any court lists. Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that's been provided. But let's be absolutely clear here. We had an arrangement with courts Desk who we accept provide a useful service and what they did, but which the hon.

Member opposite doesn't seem to think is a problem, is that they, in breach of that agreement, provided that information, passed it on, no doubt for commercial purposes, to an AI company that included defendants, addresses, dates of birth. These are things that I don't think anyone in this House thinks should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, and yet it was provided to an AI company. What we then asked courts desk to do was to delete the information that they held.

As of yesterday. I understand that they still have not done so. They accept they've acted in breach of their agreement and indeed threatened the MoJ with legal action which they have not chosen to take forward. Now, what we are saying is that when you act in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, that that is very serious and I take data protection seriously. But there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to to access through the usual channels, the lists that we are talking about here that remains open today.

It remains open to journalists to to contact HMCTS. And indeed, what we want to do is put this on a secure footing with the necessary guardrails. And I will repeat, because he's muttering through my entire response, no one's deleted any court records. So everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual, historic crimes, all of that remains accessible. Caselaw remains accessible, and the court list remain accessible. Open justice is vitally important, but what I will not have is a wild west of private companies who act in breach of agreements with government and pass sensitive data onto third party AI companies.

That will not do. And he knows that if he was in my position, it wouldn't have been acceptable to him either. Chair of the Justice Select Committee, Andy Slaughter.
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:32
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I want to be absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue to have, as they have continue to have, as they have throughout this, to have access to court information that they need directly from individual magistrates, court, courts and magistrates, court, courts and tribunals services, either via the Court and Tribunal Hearings Service, which is a new digital system, or which is a new digital system, or on the Gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what recognise the utility of what Courts desk provided, but clearly that company was not acting in a responsible way, and when we approached them about the breach of their agreement that they had with HMCTS, they accepted that they had that and then threatened the Ministry of Justice with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if you're trying to cooperate and get things on a sound and steady footing and to give her the timeline.

Let me be absolutely clear. All magistrates and Crown Court lists and the accompanying case Summarisation data that goes with that will be available on the Court and Tribunals Tribunal Hearings Service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept it's got to be easy and available to them in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. And as I've said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March.

We've got to do this in a responsible way. We've got to balance the very real needs of open justice, which I readily accept and which this government is committed to with data protection, particularly when it comes to vulnerable victims who are at the Shastri-Hurst.
13:33
13:34
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
Minister. So the answer to his question is that the report to the ICO has not yet been made. I raised it with our data officer and the conclusion, the advice that I was given was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral. I've asked for that to be looked at again. But what is clear? What is clear and courts desk accepted? This fact is that they breached the agreement by passing this to an AI company. That is not a responsible thing to with people's private addresses, with data relating to individuals by which those individuals can be identified and which are not subject to the same reporting restrictions, which of course, journalists abide by.

So let me be absolutely clear with the House, the sort of service that courts desk provide is one that we want to replicate, but we want to have it on a stable footing with the necessary data protection guardrails. And that is what we are putting in place. And if courts desk had engaged with the MoJ and HMCTS in a responsible fashion, we would not be in the position that we are in today. But the fact is that all along, journalists have retained the ability.

That's really critical thing. These are about cost lists, not court records. Court lists for all courts. Journalists throughout have been able to engage with the information in the same way that they were able to do pre 2020 pre courts desk, so they can get that information and they can continue reporting what's happening in our courts.
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
Well, he will know that I am all for being pragmatic and having dispute resolution. But as I said, when in in in the course of trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, litigation is threatened. It's very, very difficult to do that. But what I want to do is move forward, including potentially with courts, if they can show that they are responsible actors, which at the moment they are not doing so. And what needs to happen is two things.

First of all, we have all of the power and all of the data in a single company. I don't think that's healthy. I think the tendering process, which opens up the potential for different parties to gain licences, is one that I think, again, everyone in this House who believes in an open market would favour, and that way we make the information accessible to different companies. Secondly, those license agreements need to be strengthened in order that we don't see a repeat of what we've seen here, which is a sharing of data where it should not go.

And we need to have those guardrails in place. The nature of the agreement that was agreed under the previous government was too informal for my liking, too baggy and too loose. And in fact, I think it's partly what's allowed this to happen. And it's why I want to put things on a better footing, not take ages about it. I've said we'd do this by March and we're getting on with that. But in the meantime, it's a wild West, and we cannot simply have companies acting in breach of the agreement.

Sticking personal, sensitive information belonging to victims and defendants alike into an AI bot and passing it onto an AI company. Who will do who knows what with it?
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:47
13:48
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. make a statement about the local power plan and the R7 solar and onshore wind auction results, both of which are published today. Britain's drive for clean energy is about helping to answer the call for a different kind of economy that works for the many, not just the wealthy and powerful in our society. And in the last few weeks, our Warm Homes Plan has delivered the biggest public investment in upgrading homes in British history to cut bills for millions and tackle fuel poverty.

We've secured the largest offshore wind auction in European history with, for the first time, a Clean Industry Bonus to drive investment into our industrial communities, and we've agreed a fair work charter with business and trade unions as a first step to improve workers rights in renewables. Today, I can report to the House the results of the R7 auction for onshore wind and solar. In onshore wind, we secured 1.3GW of power at the price of £72 per megawatt hour and in solar, nearly five gigawatts at the price of £65 per megawatt hour.

I can inform the house. Together, this onshore wind and solar will provide enough power for the equivalent of over 3 million homes, further reducing our dependence on international fossil fuel markets. It represents. It represents the largest solar and onshore wind auction in UK history. Now, I've had representations, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we should have cancelled this auction and instead just build new gas. I can tell the House that the price of onshore wind and solar is less than half the price to build and operate new gas stations.

Onshore wind and solar are by far the cheapest power sources available to build and operate. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have rejected those representations. Instead, we have record breaking results that will cut bills for families across Britain. But as we get off the roller coaster of fossil fuel markets controlled by Petro states and dictators, we don't want this clean energy to be simply owned by big companies and multinationals. We want every community in this country to have the chance to own our energy future.

And we know that community ownership is a transformative tool to build the wealth and pride of local areas and give people a stake in the places in which they live. We already see this in pioneering community energy projects across Britain, and I pay tribute to them. Lawrence Weston in Bristol, where England's tallest onshore wind turbine and I visited, is 100% community owned and generates tens of thousands of pounds a year to reinvest in the local community. The Geraint Thomas Velodrome in Newport, which hosts nearly 2000 solar panels, one of the largest rooftop solar projects in Wales, cutting their bills dramatically.

And the Huntly Development Trust in Aberdeenshire, where community wind projects generate income that helps fund local charities. And we know that community energy doesn't just spread wealth and power, but also contributes to the resilience of our energy system by generating and storing power closer to where people live. Yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the individual success stories, Britain has never decisively seized the opportunities of community energy. Around half of wind capacity in Denmark is owned by its citizens, as is almost half of solar in Germany.

Yet in Britain, currently, less than 1% of our renewables are community owned. With our Local Power Plan today, we will change this. Today we announce the biggest public investment in community owned energy in British history. During the last parliament, less than 60 million was spent on government community energy schemes. Today, we set aside up to £1 billion of funding from Great British Energy to invest. This will offer grants to local authorities and community groups to support projects in their early stages, loans and project finance to support construction and operation, and funding to help communities buy a stake in larger renewable projects in their areas.

And this funding will also be targeted at under-served areas of the country where it can make the biggest difference. Great British Energy estimates this funding will support an initial 1000 community and local energy projects. But this is just the start. Today we send out the message to community groups, sports clubs, miners welfare, village halls across the country in every community of Britain. We want to give you the chance to own your own energy, to transfer money from the pockets of energy companies to your community, and to generate income for the benefit of local people for decades to come.

A Labour government enabling every community of our country to own and build wealth for local people. But to make it happen, we know it is not just about providing capital funding. Communities need help to plan and develop their projects. So alongside this funding, Great British Energy will establish a one stop shop to provide support and advice about local and community energy with a team of expert advisers to help communities get their projects off the ground. Britain's publicly owned energy company working hand in hand with our brilliant mayors, local authorities and community groups to turn the ambition of local communities into reality.

Now, alongside the funding and support, we also know that we must confront the reality that for years, the rules of our energy system have held back the growth of community, energy. Local and community schemes face hurdles that may be straightforward for large developers to overcome, but are too high for voluntary groups with limited time and resources. We are determined to break down these barriers, so we will also work with Ofgem to reform market codes and supply licences to help communities sell the power they generate, and we will ensure community energy projects benefit from our reforms to planning and grid.

We also, Madam Deputy Speaker, want to make it easier for communities to take a stake in larger projects through shared ownership, building on examples like the Isle of Skye Cooperative in the Hebrides, which owns a share of a local onshore wind farm and has generated over £1.5 million for the local community For the local community, we think there is huge potential for many more projects like this, so we will consult on how we could use existing powers in the 2015 Infrastructure Act act to mandate an offer of shared ownership powers past more than a decade ago, but never implemented.

It would mean that when big projects are built by companies, local people and communities will be offered a stake in them. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles has said, we need to move from a situation where communities can only aspire to be passive beneficiaries of projects owned by large companies, to being owners themselves with benefits in perpetuity, from community benefit to community share and community stake. Taken together. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the most comprehensive package of support to grow local and community energy our country has ever seen.

It builds on the Pride in Place programme, the Community Right to Buy and our world leading commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. And we know the Local Power Plan will not be delivered from Whitehall, but place by place, community by community. So today I issue an invitation to local and community groups, come forward with proposals and we will support you to make them happen. A stake for the British people in our energy system, generating returns for local communities and local people.

Power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few. And I commend this statement to the House.
13:55
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Greg Smith. Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether the Secretary of State is at the despatch box as the energy secretary or rehearsing for a future move to perhaps number 11. Once again, the Secretary of State is distracted by personal ambition than the bleak reality families are facing across the country with crippling energy bills. Today's announcement is being sold as a bold shift of power to local communities.

But cutting through the fluff, this plan does not make electricity cheaper and it does not offer value for the taxpayer. This plan does nothing to reduce wholesale prices, nothing to fix the grid connection backlog, nothing to tackle the structural costs. Instead, the government are asking taxpayers to fund small scale projects that will optimistically provide minor reductions in costs for a few local buildings whilst leaving families and businesses across this country still paying higher prices. There are no guarantees that the £1 billion committed through the Great British Energy Scheme will deliver lower bills, no clear test of value for money and no convincing explanation of why subsidising small, piecemeal projects offers a better return for taxpayers than backing affordable, large scale nuclear generation that would genuinely move the dial spread thinly across the country over several years and funnelled through yet another Whitehall controlled body.

This is not a serious intervention. It is a press release masquerading as an energy strategy. Madam Deputy Speaker, alongside the Local Power Plan, the results of allocation round seven this morning raised serious questions that the Secretary of State has yet to answer. In the government's own press release, they rely on internal analysis to claim that additional solar and onshore wind procured through R7 could lower bills in the early 2030s, but that analysis has not been published. It looks only at a narrow scenario, excludes wider system costs and does not give a full picture of future bill levels.

So if Ministers are so confident in their figures, why won't they release the full impact assessment? What exactly is the Secretary of State hiding? R7 also underlines the direction of travel under this government. Longer contracts, higher strike prices and greater risk locked in for bill payers. The extension of contracts for difference from 15 to 20 years means households will be tied into paying these costs for even longer, regardless of whether circumstances change. At the same time, the government has relaxed planning requirements so some offshore wind projects can bid before planning consent has even been secured.

All of this points to the root problem. Electricity prices are already too high and the policies being pursued by this government are only pushing them higher. Doubling down on carbon taxes and loading more expensive wind and solar onto a system that is not ready, risks driving up costs for both households and industry, making British business less competitive and leaving families to pick up the bill. Families are being asked to pay more, not less. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300 instead.

Bills have risen by £190 since they came into power. That is the reality behind their rhetoric, and that is the reality that every family up and down the land understands as they open their energy bills. And at the centre of all of this sits Great British Energy, an £8 billion taxpayer funded quango that was meant to lower bills for everyone. So far, all we have is the promise of a highly paid chief executive, a new board and more bureaucracy. Why do we need another expensive state body to do what the market and existing institutions should already be delivering? And that is the fundamental difference in approach.

Our cheap power plan focuses on bringing down the underlying cost of electricity, saving the public sector and everyone else vastly more in the process, and doing so without costing taxpayers a penny. This government is more focussed on its own internal politics than on delivering the one thing people need energy that is reliable, abundant and above all, affordable for all of our constituents.
14:00
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. questions, but I will reply nonetheless. Let me start on the on the issue of the R7 auction, because I think this is very interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it will give the House a picture of what's actually changed. And what's changed is the Conservative Party, not the not the reality, because we had the R5 auction a couple of years ago when the Conservatives were in power and the and in the R5 auction, the price of solar was higher than it was in this auction.

And the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Lady, who is now the Shadow Secretary of State, said this. Our reliance on gas for electricity production today risks making power prices higher than they would be in a system with a greater share of generation, from wind and solar. Moving to home based clean power mitigates risks to bill payers now and in the future. Now what has changed? Well, what's changed is that the Conservative Party have gone full MAGA.

Let us just be honest about this. They've decided to chase reform into a ludicrous position, doubling down on fossil fuels, rejecting even solar and onshore wind, the cheapest, cleanest form of power you can possibly have. And I guess the hon. Gentleman is just reading out the script now then, on community energy. Well, I mean, I have to say I congratulate him because he's given a brilliant example and picture of why the last government was so hopeless on community energy. I mean, everybody thinks it's a terrible idea.

So, I mean, he's very welcome to do this, but he's sending a message to every member of Parliament and all of their constituents, the Conservative Party. They're against community energy projects. They're against the things that will cut bills for local community groups for to to every sports club, to every community centre, to every library that will benefit from this funding. There's a very clear answer. The Conservative Party says, no, you don't deserve it. We don't want you to have those lower bills.

We don't want you to have that cheap, clean power. We don't want you to have that income and resources to reinvest in our community if they want that as a dividing line. Madam Deputy Speaker, bring it on. I say this government is on the side of local communities, on the side of cutting bills, on the side of reinvesting money into those communities. The Conservative Party, it.
14:02
14:04
14:05
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Pippa Heylings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And the Liberal Democrats welcome the government, recognising welcome the government, recognising what communities across the country have been saying for years that community energy is one of the most community energy is one of the most powerful ways to cut bills, rebuild trust in the energy system, rebuild trust in the energy system, rebuild local resilience. Take people with us on the journey to net zero. We campaigned hard to see community campaigned hard to see community energy written in to the Great British Energy Act alongside many people, although not everybody.

It seems to be today in this House and the other house, alongside community groups like the South Cambridgeshire Climate Nature Group and other community organisations across the country. We believe in localism, in empowerment and in giving communities a real stake and ownership in our clean energy future. And I thank the Minister for working with us to make sure that we did get this into the Great British Energy Act because as we rightly move away from volatile fossil fuel costs controlled by foreign powers, we must ensure that our new clean energy system puts community first.

And it must mean giving people the power to generate, own and, crucially, sell their own clean energy locally, with profits reinvested in the places where the energy is produced. So while we welcome the local power plant, in principle the devil is in the details. One. What happened to the government's pledge of 3.3 billion for community owned energy? And today what we're hearing about is £1 billion of investment. We don't want to follow the conservative government's retreat from ambition on local clean power.

It's not the time to scale back ambition. Secondly, on the crucial issue of empowerment, local empowerment regulation is needed and organisations like powerful people constantly, regularly told us that there are barriers to access. As the Secretary of State said to local markets, they welcomed this plan too, echoing the promise made by the Minister here that the government will establish local energy supply models, the local power plan, a look through it very quickly in the final place talks about the regulatory changes necessary.

But when will those come through? This has to happen. The energy transition not to communities, but with the order.
14:07
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:33
14:34
14:34
14:35
Richard Quigley Portrait Mr Richard Quigley MP (Isle of Wight West, Labour)
-
-
>> 27th of February. Which brings us to the ten minute rule motion. Mr. Richard Quigley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm already excited about doing the walk, so forgive me if I start. I beg to move that we be given leave beg to move that we be given leave to bring a bill to establish a requirement for persons providing certain public services, to undertake training relating to eating disorders and disordered eating, to make provision about the delivery and content of such training and for connected purposes. As many colleagues will know, this bill is deeply personal to me.

I have spoken before about my youngest child's experience with an eating disorder exposed me to the scale of failings across Camhs, wider mental health services and our inpatient system. This bill will not fix every one of those problems, but I do want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly to the Minister for care and the Minister of Health, Innovation and Safety for their genuine commitment to understanding this crisis and their determination to confront it head on.

Turning to the Bill itself, I have chosen to focus on training for frontline public service workers, ensuring they are equipped to recognise and safeguard those experiencing one of the most misunderstood mental health conditions. The evidence is clear early intervention, spotting the signs quickly and accessing appropriate care dramatically improves outcomes. It can reduce the need for inpatient or day patient treatment by around 35%, meaning fewer hospital admissions and far less disruption to everyday life. Yet eating disorders remain profoundly misunderstood. Unlike many other illnesses, the person affected may actively resist help.

These conditions often drive secrecy, denial, and a determination to mask the harm being done both to the individual and to the people who love them most. As with domestic abuse, it is so often our frontline public service workers who, in those brief moments when a sufferer allows their guard to drop, are best placed to reassure them that recovery is both possible and within reach. Eating disorders do not only cause physical and mental deterioration. We must not forget that eating disorders carries the highest rate of mortality of any mental illness.

The most recent confirmed data from the Office of National Statistics for 2019 recorded 36 deaths. Yet research from the US suggests that the true figure for the UK could be far higher, potentially closer to 1860 deaths. Once underreporting and misclassification are accounted for. Hospital admissions tell a similar story. Admissions exceeded 30,000 for the first time in the year 2324, a 60% rise compared with pre-pandemic levels. I fear that without legislative action, we will continue to reach these devastating milestones.

More children are losing their childhoods, more parents are fighting desperately just to have their child heard, and more entirely preventable deaths. The framework for the training proposed in this bill already exists. As I have said previously, it it mirrors the approach taken for domestic abuse enquiries, giving frontline professionals the skills to ask sensitive, safe and appropriate questions. I firmly believe that the vast majority of dedicated frontline staff want to help. This bill simply gives them the tools and confidence to do so.

In 2023, the Royal College of Psychiatrists developed medical emergencies in eating disorders to improve the safe management of crises and prevent avoidable complications and deaths. Yet we still do not see consistent, consistent implementation across the UK. Far too many people with eating disorders arrive at A&E, only to be turned away with no follow up support, and that cannot be right. Eating disorders also rarely appear in isolation. The Eating Disorders APPG has heard harrowing accounts of people undergoing cancer treatment whose chemotherapy was not adjusted due to a lack of understanding about their eating disorder, leaving those already facing the fear and loneliness of chemotherapy even more vulnerable.

One profession where this training could have a profound impact is teaching body dissatisfaction. One of the strongest risk factors is now being observed in girls as young as six. That is a truly shocking fact. There are many teachers feel utterly helpless when they see their students beginning to slip into harmful patterns of thinking or behaviour. NHS figures show that around 6000 children under ten were hospitalised for eating disorders over a five year period, including more than 1000 children under five. I do not believe for a minute that the hospitalisation of over 6000 children suffering from an eating disorder was inevitable, and I can only imagine the helplessness felt by parents, carers, teachers and clinicians as they watch those children struggle.

The training in this bill is designed to change that. It will give teachers and frontline staff practical, evidence based tools to recognise early warning signs, noticeable changes in eating behaviours, obsessive thinking about food or exercise, rapid weight fluctuations, withdrawal from friends or sudden anxiety linked to body image. It would guide staff on how to ask sensitive questions safely, how to communicate without reinforcing harmful thinking, and how to signpost families quickly towards appropriate clinical support. Crucially, it would also help staff understand what not to do, avoiding language that may inadvertently validate disordered thoughts, resisting the instinct to often reassure that could make things worse, and recognising when urgent escalation is required.

As I have set out, eating disorders are complex and often misunderstood conditions that present differently. Every individual anorexia, binge eating disorder and other illnesses do not look the same from one person to the next. But we do know this in a moment of need. Having someone who can recognise the signs and intervene can be the first step towards a meaningful recovery, giving someone the chance to reclaim their life. As I said at the start of this speech, this bill is not a silver bullet for the crisis in eating disorder services.

I have been candid with Ministers about the breadth of change required across the system, and I suspect the Department will be delighted to hear that I intend to continue campaigning. But this bill recognises the deceptive nature of these illnesses and acknowledges a simple truth families cannot and should not be expected to navigate such complex, deeply confusing conditions on their own, and front line staff must have the tools to help where they can. For those such as Zara Taylor, who tragically passed away due to her eating disorder, we will never know whether the measures in this bill might have made a difference for her, but we do owe it to her and to many others who are no longer with us, to do everything within our power in this place, to ensure that those who are struggling can seek and get access wherever they are in their journey.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, I say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the bill. A Wera Hobhouse John Whitby year nos MoD Baggy Shanker Lee Barron nos MoD Baggy Shanker Lee Barron Sian Berry Anneliese Dodds John McDonnell Josh Newbury and myself. Madam Speaker. Deputy speaker. Eating Disorders (Training) Bill Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the. 27th of February. Madam Deputy. Speaker, Friday the 27th of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, Friday the 27th of February. Motion number two on business of the House today. business of the House today. Minister, to move. The question is,
14:42
14:43
None Portrait Motion: Debate on motion to approve the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026
-

these instruments at the at the same time and move that the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions
14:43
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 also be approved, both of them having been laid before this House on the 12th of January. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my view, the provisions in the instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. So firstly, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating order. This will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.8%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2025. It will increase most other benefit rates by 3.8%, in line with the rise in the Consumer Prices Index in the year to September 2025.

And so the regular formula has been used. The order commits the government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in 20 2627, of which 6 billion will be from state pensions and pension benefits, 2 billion from disability and carers benefits and 1 billion from other working age benefits. A further £2 billion of expenditure on working age benefits will be incurred in 2026, as a result of up-rating decisions made under separate legal powers in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will set new rates for Universal Credit and income related Employment and Support allowance.

Let me say a little more about each of the benefits being uprated in turn. So first of all, on pensions, the government's commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices, or 2.5%. And that means the Up-rating will be by 4.8% for 20 2627. So as a result, from April, the basic state pension will increase from £176.45 per week to £184.90, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £230.25 at the moment to £241.3

**** Possible New Speaker ****

per week. I'll gladly give way to John Glen. I suppose I ought to declare an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I suppose I ought to declare an interest and. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we welcome, of course, the adherence to the triple lock that my party to the triple lock that my party introduced. He will also know that there are tens of thousands of expatriate United Kingdom citizens whose pensions have been, and remain frozen at the point at which they left the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that they have paid throughout their working lives in the UK, their full taxes and National Insurance contributions.

The last government to our shame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

failed to address this issue. Does this government have any plans to do so? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. It may be for raising this point. It may be some comfort to him to know that it wasn't only the last government that failed to do anything about this, but previous governments also failed. And indeed, in my previous failed. And indeed, in my previous tenures of the office of Pensions Minister, this issue was raised with me. But of course it was. It was the case that when those people left the the UK, the rules were then as they are today.

It was quite clear when people left. And of course it does depend which country they went to. But in the countries where Up-rating hasn't been applied, it's always been the case that Up-rating hasn't been applied there. And so it it shouldn't have come as a surprise to those who left when their pensions weren't uprated. So there are there are not proposals at the moment that we're looking at to to change that situation. But I know it's a matter that he's campaigned on consistently over a long period.

I pay tribute to him for that. Yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will Jim Shannon. Madam Deputy Speaker one of the things, Minister, one of the things that's come to my attention is while we very much welcome the triple lock, we we welcome the actual monies coming to our actual monies coming to our pensioners at a nearly four year old pensioner in my office just last week, she says I've got a last week, she says I've got a demand from the from the HMRC for hundreds of pounds. I've never been in debt in all my life.

Can I ask in debt in all my life. Can I ask the Secretary of State please? Please do this for me. If you could, please. When it comes to those pensioners who find themselves now being taxed when they were never taxed before, is it not possible to have a different system where the money could be taxed at source at the very beginning, rather than asking pensioners who are financially under pressure, who are mentally under pressure, emotionally under pressure to fill in an online form that they just can't do, there must be a simpler

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way of doing it first. Well, I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I mean, this is, of course, is a matter for Her course, is a matter for Her Majesty's Treasury rather than me. The question of how the the tax The question of how the the tax system operates, it may be some system operates, it may be some comfort to him, to he may already have heard the reassurance provided by the Chancellor that those whose by the Chancellor that those whose only income is the basic or new state pension, without any increments, will not have to pay any income tax in the course of this Parliament.

But of course, those who have additional income beyond the state pension very often do have a tax liability. But the the mechanism for how that is applied is is a matter for my hon. Friends in Her Majesty's Treasury rather than me, but I can certainly make sure that his point is passed on on to them. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 3.8% in line with prices.

The government is committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, and so the safety net provided by the Pension Credit Standard Minimum Guarantee will increase by 4.8%. That means for single pensioners, it will increase from £227.10 to £238 per week for couples from £346.60 to £363.25 per week. The Pension Credit Savings Credit maximum amount will increase by 3.8%, in line with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prices. Yes sir. Gladly. I thank the Minister for giving way. One of the first acts of this government was to remove the Winter Fuel Payment, which the subsequently partially U-turned on, subsequently partially U-turned on, and the Prime Minister himself promised assistance for WASPI women, something that is manifestly not happening. These both impact pensioners in a significant way when it comes to the up-rating of when it comes to the up-rating of new and old pensions. Pensioners on the old pension are seeing that gap widening all the time, because a lot of the going up by the same percentage, they're starting from different baselines.

Well, what is the government doing to try and equalise those pension levels, to try and prevent that from that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situation from becoming worse? Yes. Well, we're not proposing any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, we're not proposing any change in those arrangements at the moment. As you know, these arrangements were introduced by the arrangements were introduced by the the previous government, in fact, I think by the coalition government that put in place the the current that put in place the the current arrangements for the new state pension, and they were introduced pension, and they were introduced with commitments about future up-rating. And we are committed to delivering the triple lock for them, but we're not planning to sort of change the the relativities between those two arrangements.

But if I can now, Madam Deputy Speaker, move on to working age benefits, most working age benefits and other benefits for people below state pension age will also increase by 3.8%. That includes statutory payments such as statutory Sick pay, statutory maternity pay, the Personal Allowances of Income Support, Housing Benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance and Contributory Employment and Support Allowance. The order will also increase the child amounts, the carer amounts, Transitional Severe Disability Premiums in Universal Credit and pensioner and Carer premiums in Income related Employment and Support Allowance, all by 3.8%.

The Universal Credit Act 2025, as I mentioned earlier, included very important changes to rebalance Universal Credit for 2026 to 7. The standard allowance in Universal Credit will be uprated by September CPI, plus an additional 2.3%. Now. This represents the first permanent above inflation rise to the Universal Credit standard allowance that there has ever been. And I believe it's the first permanent real terms increase in the headline benefit rate since the 1970s. However, it isn't in the order we are debating today, but all these increases will apply across Great Britain.

Yes, I will. Giving way and I very much appreciate the action the government has taken on Up-rating UC for the first time. As he says in in his history. However, would he accept that that it still doesn't cover the cost of the basic essentials like food, heating and rent for for many of our most put upon constituents? Well, I think perhaps the point he's making that it doesn't fulfil the aspirations of the Essentials Guarantee campaign, which he and I are familiar with.

And that is true. But this up-rating above inflation in April will be the first of four such up-rating. So there will be a similar over inflation up-rating in each of this coming April, and each of the following three April's. It will not end up at the the level that there's been a campaign for the essentials guarantee around. But let's see what happens beyond the the period that we have made these announcements for. And as you said, it is a historic change of direction for public policy benefits for people in England and Wales who have additional costs as a result of disability or ill health, will also increase by 3.8%.

These include Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Personal Independence Payment. The increase will also apply to Carer's Allowance. And let me turn also, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 or the GMP Increase Order. This sets out the yearly amount by which the guaranteed minimum pension, part of an individual's contracted out occupational pension, earned between 1988 and April 1997, must be increased when it is being paid. The increase is paid by occupational pension schemes and helps to provide a measure of inflation protection to people in receipt of contracted out occupational pensions, which were earned between those two years 1988 and 1997.

The law requires that GMP earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices as measured the previous September, capped at 3%. So the September 2025 inflation figure, or CPI figure, was 3.8%. The increase for the financial year 20 2627 will be 3%. Having that 3% cap does provide pension schemes with more certainty, allowing them to forecast their future liabilities more reliably. And that is important when they're considering their funding commitments.

And this does strike a balance between protecting members against the effects of inflation on the one hand, but not increasing scheme costs beyond what schemes and sponsoring employers can reasonably afford on the other. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the draft Social Security benefits up rating order. If Parliament approves, it commits the government to increase expenditure of £9 billion in the next financial year. Changes will mainly come into effect from the 6th of April this year and apply for the tax year 20 2627.

The order maintains the triple lock, which benefits pensioners in receipt of both the basic and new state pensions, raises the level of the safety net in Pension Credit. Beyond the increase in prices and increases the rates of benefit for those in the labour market, and increases the rates of carers. Benefits and benefits. To help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment. The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formally contracted out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMP in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997, giving a measure of protection against inflation paid for by their scheme.

And I commend the draft Social Security benefits. Up-rating order 2026 and the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 to the House.
14:58
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. the draft guaranteed minimum pensions increase order as on the Order Paper. Shadow Minister Rebecca Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rebecca Smith. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to. Just start. By reassuring the right hon. Member for East Ham about something Member for East Ham about something that I said last week in the two child benefit cap debate, I shared something of my story and said that we had lost child benefit as a result of the new Labour government coming in in 1997. I was convinced I had said family credit, which was what I was supposed to say. And when I saw it back and it was read back over Hansard, we realised in my haste to get my point across, I had in fact said the wrong thing, which makes up for makes sense of his perplexed face, which I caught across the front benches.

So I just wanted to put that on record, although I have also done that in Hansard. So firstly, this afternoon I can of course, affirm that the opposition supports the increase of the guaranteed minimum pension and the up-rating of Social Security benefits, as is usual. However, given that this debate is largely a formality and there will be no vote on these motions, it is a good opportunity to take a step back and reflect on the pensions and benefits system more broadly, albeit, of course, within the frame of these motions before us this afternoon.

Now, first off, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to highlight what I call the benefits barbell. At one end, the working age welfare bill keeps getting heavier. On the other, the cost of public sector defined benefit pensions is eye watering. Yet in the middle of these two heavyweights is the hard working taxpayer straining under the load? Welfare and pensions both matters. They are pillars of a decent society. But it is Britain's taxpayers who do the heavy lifting. They are the ones who get up before dawn, commute in all weathers and keep the economy moving.

Without their efforts or even more government government borrowing, there would be no welfare state at all and we cannot pile more weight onto their shoulders indefinitely. The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already admitted that the long awaited Timms review will not involve making welfare savings, and is now not likely to be published before 2027. It seems that this government is shunning any attempts at reform over the coming year, and yet again, it is the taxpayers who bear the cost of this delay.

Right now, the UK is on the verge of becoming a welfare state with an economy attached. Over 40,000 people were signed off work every day by GPS over the last year, according to the centre for Social Justice. Over 5 million people are claiming benefits with no work requirements, and that is equivalent to a population over half the size of London. Now Concerningly Madam Deputy Speaker, this number includes more than 300,000 people aged 16 to 24 young people with promising lives ahead of them, whose ambitions are being stifled by a benefit system which would rather write them off.

Labour is presiding over a youth unemployment crisis and seems unable to offer long term solutions. There are already nearly a million young people in the UK who are not in education, employment or training. Over 700,000 university graduates are out of work and on benefits. One and a half years after taking office, this government is still failing to tame the runaway benefits bill and rising unemployment rates. By contrast, the conservative plan is to get Britain working again, which will tackle youth unemployment by offering young people a first jobs bonus, which they can use to save for their first home.

Now, living within our means is one of those sensible, mundane things which gives the Conservative Party its reputation as a safe pair of hands for the economy. Of course, making welfare savings is far less likely to grab headlines. Scrapping the two child benefits cap or rolling out more free school meals is a far easier win. But getting the deficit under control is absolutely crucial to a healthy economy. When conservatives took office in 2010, the government were running a deficit of 9%.

By the time Covid struck, we had brought it down to under 1%. This, in turn, enabled us to provide generous support to individuals and businesses during lockdowns. Now, as I said in the debate on the two child benefit cap last week, keeping the limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 20 2627, rising to £3.2 billion in 2032 31. Yet our current Prime Minister would rather throw some red meat to his backbenchers than exercise fiscal discipline. He has caved into their demands, even though scrapping the two child benefit limit was previously ruled out by the Chancellor and was conspicuously absent from Labour's manifesto.

Conservatives believe in fairness for the working parents, who make difficult choices about whether they can afford another child. Many working families do not have incomes much higher than the threshold for universal Credit, but are paying for others through their taxes. Why should we make these parents bear a double burden of supporting their own children, as well as subsidising other people's? A fair system should not simply exempt families on benefits from making tough choices. Now, speaking of fairness, the issue of passported benefits desperately needs investigating.

Last week, I highlighted the shocking statistic that 1 in 4 full time UK workers would be better off on benefits than in work. But something that often gets overlooked is that people on Universal Credit also gain access to a raft of discounts and additional benefits such as free prescriptions, discounted broadband, healthy food cards and special savings accounts. There are over 20 of these schemes sprinkled across multiple government departments now together. Taken, taken together, Passported benefits give some families who are already on Universal Credit over £10,000 a year in extra support, costing the taxpayer over £10 billion, according to a new report from the think tank onward.

These benefits need rationalising and streamlining within Universal Credit. Otherwise, we will continue to face three serious problems. Firstly, these passported benefits disincentivize people from entering employment. Any sensible person would think twice about starting a job if they faced a cliff edge. Denial of additional benefits worth thousands of pounds once their Universal Credit tapers away. Secondly, we have a two tier system as a result of these linked benefits, individuals just outside the universal threshold often face greater financial hardship than benefit claimants.

And thirdly, for those who really do need these extra schemes, there is a labyrinth of bureaucracy which slows down the process of getting help. These piecemeal entitlements distort the system. From a quantitative perspective, it's harder to see which poverty interventions are actually having a positive effect. It is also incredibly difficult for everyone to see if this government is succeeding at reducing poverty. Now, I welcome the government's new emphasis on deep material poverty as a headline poverty metric. This is a far more holistic measure which captures how poverty impacts people's daily lives and whether they can afford necessities.

Last week, we heard endlessly that the government's child poverty strategy and the scrapping of the two child benefit cap will bring half a million children out of poverty. But it is worth noting that we are talking about relative poverty. This can never be eradicated because it refers to a household income below 60% of the median household income. The only way to reduce relative poverty is to raise the incomes of the poorest faster than the middle, or compress the income distribution and overemphasis on relative poverty has underpinned a misleading left wing argument that exaggerates the need for income redistribution.

I worry that we will end up paying people to be so-called middle class if we continue, as we are now. At the heart of conservative philosophy is a belief in personal responsibility, taking control of your future through hard work and aspiration. If we're serious about tackling child poverty long term, it is vital to deal with the effects of intergenerational worklessness and not to just rely on Social Security. Children in long term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived.

They are 10% more likely to end up workless themselves. For every parent who does not go out to work, there is a child who misses seeing a positive example of work model to them. The alarm clock, the daily routine, the reward for an honest day work, and the ability to save up to buy important things. Now, that's not to say that there aren't those in dire circumstances for a vast number of reasons, but ultimately, when we're looking at people in general, that is the reality we need to deal with.

Under our watch, the number of children in workless households fell consistently under Labour. This number has reached a nine year high, with 1.2 million children now living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year now. Turning Madam Deputy Speaker to the topic of personal independence payments, I would like to ask the Minister about a disabled constituent I caught up with at the weekend, a veteran who served in the Royal Navy for 19 years and is now an unpaid carer for her elderly father.

She works full time, mainly from home, and commutes to London a few times a month. She had a motability scooter which enabled her to get to the office and around London when required. But after her last Pip review, which took place over the phone, she lost her higher rate of Pip and thus her scooter. She then received a puzzling letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which wrongly claimed that full time work indicated she had reasonable mobility, despite the fact that her entire home is adapted for her accessibility requirements.

Now, my constituent is a highly capable woman who is skilled at advocating for herself as well as her father, and indeed for her fellow veterans. But she admitted that she felt too stressed to open the letter. Open the letter for a few weeks, meaning that meaning that the reconsideration window had timed out by the time she fully processed the Dwp's decision. For context, she has also been diagnosed with complex PTSD following a traumatic experience in the military, and is currently on a long waiting list for treatment.

Statistically, she is unusual. Fewer than 1 in 6 Pip claimants are in employment, so it seems bizarre that the DWP assessors are happy to downgrade someone in this situation who is in work and genuinely needs the higher rate of Pip to help her carry out that work. Yet the department seems reluctant to stem the tide of benefits claims from people with severe mental health issues with less severe mental health issues. Pardon me. That is why a conservative government will end sickness benefits for low level mental health problems.

To ensure support is targeted to people who need it most. I welcome the government's commitment to increase the number of face to face Pip assessments to 30%, up from the very low rate of 5% in 2024, but I would urge them to be even more ambitious with their target to ensure that constituents like mine are accurately assessed and receive the help that they need. So, in conclusion, as I return to the image I began with, the barbell is getting heavier by the year, with welfare on one side and pensions on the other.

And still the hard working taxpayer stands in the middle doing all the heavy lifting. And it's my belief the government is doing far too little to ease that pressure. Working families are paying the price for a system that grows ever more expensive. While true reform moves at a crawl. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's time for a welfare system that is fair to those who need support and fair to those who pay for it.
15:09
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-
Chair of the Select Committee >> Chair of the Select Committee Debbie Abrahams so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'm pleased to be able to follow the opposition be able to follow the opposition Minister, if I if I could just pick up on a couple. There were several things, really, I would like to challenge, but I'm just going to pick up on a couple of. I may at this moment. First of all, I think one of the opening statements was that hard working people who get up at dawn and who go out to work basically don't don't approve of this increase in support.

I would like to gently point out to her that most of the people who are in receipt of Social Security support are actually working, but they're in low paid jobs presided over by previous conservative administration. So that's point number one. Point number two, I think she was talking about the concerns about young people. Yes, absolutely. Nearly a million, a million young people who are not in education, employment or training. And that concerns us all. But looking at the evidence, we must all do this, looking at the evidence that the causes that underlie this.

She may have not heard me say last last week, and I've said it a few times, but the evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study is that half of that population have experienced childhood poverty and adversity in their in their young years under the former conservative government. And that is the driver. You're five times, five times more likely to be not in education, employment or training. If you have experienced this long childhood poverty and adversity, which again, I don't think the Minister would claim that that hasn't happened.

But it is. It is a pleasure to also to follow on from my right hon. Friend, and I also give the Up-rating order for pensions and Social Security. My wholehearted support. It is absolutely the right thing to do. And I'm going to expand on exactly why. So this year's Up-rating, confirmed last November by the Secretary of State, will see inflation linked benefits and tax credits rise by 3.8% this April. The level of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index in September 2025, as a result of the Universal Credit Act 2025.

Some people didn't support that, but I did. Once we got rid of the the bits that I had concerns about, the fact that that we increased the standard allowance in universal Credit is is really important. This will mean an additional 2.3% in the standard allowance, and that will equate to a single claimant over 25 having seen their standard having seen their standard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allowance increase from £400 14 to £424.90 per calendar month. I will. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Grateful to my hon. Friend for. Giving way. I'm sure she. May be aware of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May be aware of. The. Resolution Foundation. Report today that shows how. An increase.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In incomes is significantly slowed. Over the past 20 years, particularly for those on low incomes, as shown by the basic rate of UC falling by 9% in real terms since 2010. So I wonder, would she think there is merit in the proposals from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for an independent advisory process to inform universal credit rates, ensuring that the standard allowance reflects the real cost of essentials and the inflation experienced by those living on lower incomes?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend may not know, but the Minister and I were on the Select Committee at the time that Select Committee at the time that Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell Trust were presenting the case for the ascent to the case for the ascent to the essentials. And, you know, there's overwhelming support, I think, for overwhelming support, I think, for this, but it's a question of how we do it in a sustainable way. And if do it in a sustainable way.

And if I could go on and develop my argument a little bit, but I think he will see that I'm moving in his direction. The state pension will also increase, as we've heard in this particular case, it will be increased by 4.8% in April. So to £241.30 per week for the new state pension, in line with the annual increase in the average wage earnings index from last May to September. But I'm going to mention just very, very quickly, why it's important that we do see the increase in UC above CPI inflation, although state support for working age people and pensioners has been fairly similar.

When En bloc protein was first introduced in 1972, the up-rating or increase in working age social security support in line with inflation, such as the As UC, has not always happened. So in the last 15 years, Social Security support for working age people was only increased by 1%. Between 2013 and 16 and then frozen between 2016 and 2020. Now, if anyone who wants to go and have a look at the changes in inflation over the last 15 years, it makes interesting reading, particularly in 2022 three and three four.

This is much, much below inflation. Does the result of this? Since 2012, you have seen benefit levels for working age people and their families have lost 8.8% of their value. The UK's social protections levels are amongst the least generous in the OECD. In 2021, the New Economics Foundation estimated that the actual loss in cash terms was equivalent to £14 billion. They also estimated that if spending had been maintained, there would have been 1.5 million fewer people living in poverty.

People are often surprised to hear that over the last 20 years or so, the amount of DWP DWP spending as a percentage of GDP, which is acknowledged as the only way you can fairly compare spending, has changed very little. It was 10% in 2025 and in 22,005, and in 2025 was 11%. The slight increase being accounted for an increase in spending on pensioners, which I think we would all agree is the right thing to do and we would support.

What is alarming is that although poverty levels have been stabilised and will start coming down this year as a result, for example, the removal of the two child limit to Social Security support and the increase in the living wage, the depth of poverty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is increasing. The Joseph, very briefly. Thank you. Thank the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank the hon. Member for giving way. When it comes to tackling child poverty, there are there are many things that can be there are many things that can be done. But one of the things that the Scottish Government has done, which has massive backing from the third sector, is introducing a third sector, is introducing a universal child payment with the hon. Member agree that that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potentially a way forward. Unfamiliar with the child payment? I need to understand it in the context of what else is happening in Scotland as well. So. So I'm aware of it and I think it's an interesting way that Scotland have tried to address that. We also had a meeting with the Scottish Child Commissioner and was were impressed with what she was doing as well. But I'll reserve judgement until we see till I understand it a bit more in the round, as they say.

So the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last week published new analysis showing that in 20 2124, the average person in poverty had an income of 29% below the poverty line. And that is up from the gap in 20 of 23% in 1994 97. If we use Equivalised figures, this means that for couples without children, they are living on less than 12,500 pounds a year for children. For couples with two children under 14, this is about 17,500 pounds a year.

So Social Security is complex. But the importance of looking at deep poverty, which my hon. Friend is doing, is is really, really important. And if we avoid the appalling situation with the NEETs that we have inherited, then this is what we need to do. Of the 14.2 million people living in poverty identified in the most recent poverty analysis, 6 million are in severe and persistent poverty and more than half are disabled or live in a disabled household. Whilst I recognise the significant moves this government has made to address the inadequacy of working age social security support to tackle the poverty and cost of living crisis that people are experiencing.

I think personally we need to be a bit bolder. As I said last week, I would like to see us be clear about our visions and vision and values which define what our Social Security system is for. It's 80 years since the 1946 National Insurance Act, which was introduced in response to the Beveridge Report and to the outcomes, the appalling circumstances after the Second World War. I believe we need a new social contract which the British people can buy into, which spells out how all the elements of a comprehensive 21st century welfare state work together to deliver for them.

For me, our social security system, like our NHS, should be there for all of us in our time of need. It should protect us from poverty. We lose our jobs, our are born with or acquire health conditions or disabilities. And when we grow old, it should also be there for us if and when we need extra support, when we become carers or sadly when we lose a loved one. But it can't work in isolation. It needs to be considered in conjunction with our health and social care, education and skills and business and employment systems in particular.

But there's more as well. Without a fit, healthy working age population, a skilled workforce and a fair employment system providing quality, well remunerated jobs, our economic productivity is known to fall our welfare system as a whole then becomes under threat. As an example, health Equity Norse Health is Wealth report shows that improving the health of the North to the same level as the rest of the country would add an extra 18.4 billion a year to the economy through enhanced productivity while reducing demand on the NHS.

Last year, the Work and Pensions Select Committee commissioned Health Equity North to report on what the income could be generated through increasing return to work for people in receipt of Universal Credit by just 5%. Their estimates show that it would yield an extra 20 billion over the life of the of the Parliament, with a return on investment of between £5.21 and £6.6 for every £1 of employment support invested. This is the way we're going to reduce DWP spending.

This is the way we're going to increase growth. So I look forward to how get Get Britain working and keep Britain working. Programs such as Connect to Work and The Vanguards are expanded. They're a fantastic example of how we can proceed. I was so impressed when I met organisations that are delivering Connect to Work and and the select committee had a session last, last week with Sir Charlie Mayfield and also small businesses to see how they could be involved in that.

But I do hope that we can expand this and build on it. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Liberal Democrat.
15:22
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Spokesperson Steve Darling. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's always a pleasure to follow the Member for Saddleworth follow the Member for Saddleworth and East Oldham, or so. It's almost as if she'd been cribbing off my as if she'd been cribbing off my speech. Maybe it's because we are both on the DWP Select Committee, and the reality is that our welfare state is part of a society that it is should be at ease with itself. And I'd like to reflect that the the old age pension was first introduced by Asquith in 1908 for 70 year olds, and that's demonstrates that, you know, the liberals were there at the foundation of our welfare state.

Fast forward a few decades and we find that Margaret Thatcher actually broke the link with earnings, with pensions. And that had a devastating effect on pensioner poverty, increasing it significantly over many years. So it was really heartening that when back in government, the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition, was part of the government that that introduced the triple lock, where we have seen pensioner poverty being driven down. But there's still too much of it. I'm also concerned that the current conservative leader is has mused about means testing the triple lock, and this is disturbing, you know, will she put it back to the five shillings a week that we had under under Asquith? And being of good character, I wonder, but we will look for the white smoke to appear from the Conservative Party on that world.

And reflecting on pensioner poverty, because as, as my colleague just before me was reflecting on we've done a lot of work as part of the DWP select committee around this world, and it's interesting to hear from people, particularly people who we've heard evidence from in recent weeks where as you get older, particularly manual workers find it harder to to continue the jobs that they're in and how we need to make sure that there's a whole systems approach, making sure that employers are more flexible.

And the Mayfield report is important of that. How rather than just shuffling people off the books, we need to make sure that employers, like our continental friends, do see what reasonable adaptations they can do to keep them on the books, but also, pensioner poverty is something that we need to drive forward with, and I can only reflect in my own constituency of Torbay, where I've had people heading towards pension, wanting to still work but not able to because they have had a dodgy hip and they're awaiting an operation.

Sadly, the improvements are our hospital has been delayed by many, many years at Torbay Hospital. So again, it's as as my previous colleague was alluding to, it is about making sure that we're sorting out our National Health Service across the country as a whole, so that people are in a fit state to work. But also, what causes Liberal Democrats concern is the way that social care has been kicked down, kicked down the line and not being resolved sooner rather than later.

I'd now like to move on to a key element of of these proposals where I'd like to welcome more generally the upgrading that we've seen in from from the Minister here today. But Carer's Allowance and, and the fact that this is carers, unpaid carers in the United Kingdom undertake the equivalent work to the value of the whole of our NHS, which is absolutely mind blowing. But the Safety Review investigated the overpayments to carers and you only needed to earn a pound or so over a week for you to lose thousands of pounds for your Carer's Allowance and end up having a liability there.

And last February, the State Review found that there were 86,000 people who had that liability from overpayment of Carer's Allowance. The government have committed to clearing off. Sorry, it was £87,000. The government have committed to clearing off, writing off £26,000. That means that £61,000 debts remain outstanding, and that causes grave concerns for lots of people who have those who who have that over standing over them like a sword of Damocles. So I'd really be grateful if the Minister in his winding up is able to reflect on that area.

Finally, the last benefit I'd like to reflect on is in respect of what was originally DLA, but now Pip and that this this benefit unlike I know at the time of when this was a hot potato, some Ministers described it as pocket money for people with disabilities. This is a benefit that is there to support people with basic living needs, whether it's being able to get out and about and live live a normal life that many people would take for granted, or preparing food, or just the simple dignity of being clean and being able to wash and having help with that.

This is a benefit that supports these people. So it's disturbing how last July, you know, the the Minister was there having to almost rip up the speech in front of him and going into bat with a rubber chicken effectively in his hand on this. But we welcome the upgrade of these benefits. But does it truly reflect the increase that we've seen in earnings and the ability for people who are on Pip to be able to take people on to support them? My colleague before me has already mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the right to do so, because their report that was published last week shows that poverty has flatlined since 2005.

And the really disturbing thing is, if you look at deprivation and deep poverty, the fact that I hear from church leaders in Torbay that the they have seen destitution at much higher levels than what they've seen historically is absolutely shocking. So it's really disappointing that the government have not driven hard on trying to reform the welfare state in a positive way, making sure that we can tackle that deep poverty that so many in our community suffer. Making sure that we should be reforming the welfare state with those who use it so they can live their best lives.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Neil Duncan-Jordan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, our Social security system acts as the bedrock of our welfare state. But for years, the safety net it But for years, the safety net it was meant to provide has developed more and more holes through which more and more holes through which some of our most vulnerable citizens have fallen. Now, for our older generation, the state pension older generation, the state pension is absolutely the foundation on which a decent retirement can be built. The restoration of the triple lock has been key to raising the incomes of some of our poorest pensioners, which is why we need to see it continue, of course, but it would be wrong to say the job has been done when we still have 1.9 million older people living in poverty, and the weakness of our means tested pension credit system
15:30
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
is that around 750,000 older people is that around 750,000 older people are eligible to claim, but have yet to do so. That is why we need to look again at the advantages of a universal system of income in retirement that reaches everyone, retirement that reaches everyone, even within the current up-rating arrangements. There is an unfairness I want to bring out this afternoon, 8.3 million older people are in receipt of the old pre 2016 state pension, which is made up of the basic state pension and the second state pension, which for many would have been SERPs.

The state earnings related pension scheme introduced by the late and great Barbara Castle. Whilst the triple lock applies to the basic state pension for these people, the lower consumer price index is used to up-rate the second state pension this year that will give a difference of 1%, and over time we have seen the gap between those on the old state pension and the new state pension widen. This is unfair and we should consider up-rating all pensions in the same way.

Now, Up-rating, of course, is also a contentious issue that's already been mentioned in the chamber this afternoon when it comes to overseas pensioners. Nearly half a million UK state pensioners do not receive the annual increase because they've moved to a country that does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK. This means that their state pensions are frozen at the value they were when they left the UK. Now for some this will mean their pensions are now virtually worthless.

So whilst today we can debate the annual up-rating of the state pension, this process does not include the frozen pensions policy because that is dealt with through secondary legislation. Now, given the serious impact on many voters living overseas, this lack of scrutiny and the opportunity to vote means that this House is unable to hold the government to account on this issue. And I think that needs to change. Now, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to address the issue of our Social Security system needing to provide for the essentials of living, which a number of members have already raised this April for the first time since Universal Credit.

As the Minister said, the standard allowance will increase above inflation. This will certainly go some way to close the gap between the cost of essentials and is welcome, of course. But despite this boost to many families will continue to face a significant shortfall between their income and the daily costs of living. Now, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell estimate that a single adult needs at least £120 a week and a couple £205 a week to afford the essentials.

Universal credit sadly falls short of this. We know that the vast majority of people referred to a food bank, were in receipt of a means tested social Security payment, such as Universal Credit, and at the heart of the problem is the fact that there is no evidence based foundation for setting benefit levels. As a result, up-rated rates don't properly reflect people's needs. That is why there is a call for an independent process that draws on research, including from those with lived experience, to advise Ministers on how much universal credit needs to be to afford essentials like food, utilities and vital household items.

The protection Madam Deputy Speaker offered by our social security system should be to ensure that no one in need falls through the gaps. This is a mark of a compassionate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society and one we should be proud to advance. With leave of the House Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the House Minister to wind up. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I'm With the leave of the House, I'm grateful to have that opportunity to do so, and I welcome the to do so, and I welcome the contributions we've heard to the debate. And there are a number of debate. And there are a number of points I'd want to make in response to those that have been made. But let me start by just thanking everyone who's taken part.

We've had some constructive and helpful contributions, are grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for clarifying her point about what happened in 1997. She read my facial expression correctly. I was perplexed when she told us that child benefit abolished. I think it was 1999. Little bit of checking since she made that clarification was 1999. That family
15:35
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
credit was replaced, but it was replaced, of course, by the much better tax credit system, a much stronger system. And I don't know whether the decision was made in whether the decision was made in her family not to to apply for that. But there was big progress made, But there was big progress made, particularly in reducing child poverty across the country thanks to the introduction of the working to the introduction of the working tax credits and then the wider tax credit system.

In 1999. She was absolutely right to draw attention to the scale of the challenge that the country faces. With the number of young people not in education, employment or training nearly a million left behind by the previous government. And we are very energetically on the case now to address that problem. It should have been addressed long ago. It's encouraging that the proportion of young people out of education, employment or training has fallen over the last year, but we don't want anybody left behind.

So we're investing £820 million into the youth Guarantee over the next three years to make sure that every young person, every single young person, can access the support they need to earn or to learn. Nearly 900,000 young people will get intensive 1 to 1 support. We're expanding youth hubs to every area in the country, creating around 300,000 additional opportunities to gain valuable workplace experience and training, as well as under the youth guarantee, guaranteed jobs for some 55,000 young people aged 18 to 21.

So she's absolutely right. There's a great deal to be done on this. We are finally doing it, and I'll be looking forward to reporting back to the House on progress as the progress develops. She referred to her party's reputation as having a safe pair of hands for managing the economy. Well, I think following the the Liz Truss debacle, that reputation was sadly destroyed and I think it's going to take the party opposite a long time to rebuild that reputation.

The the people have a long memory about the awful turbulence that the country was plunged into in that period, and that party reputation. Her party's alleged reputation is sadly long gone. She made the point about families having a choice about whether they can afford another child. Of course, one of the the points that emerged in our debate about the the two child limit is that most families who will on universal Credit, who've got more than two children, most of them were not on Universal Credit when they had their children.

So actually that wasn't an issue in their minds when they made that choice. And I you know, I think the the conservative response in, in that debate doesn't reflect the realities of what families are facing. She made an interesting point about Passported benefits, and I've seen the the publicity around what the the think tank onward has said about this. I mean, it is understandable that service providers use an existing means test to, to target their provision.

That's what the last government did on the cost of living payment. For example, during the pandemic and indeed the I noticed that the head of onward is a former chief secretary to the Treasury. So, you know, you would have thought he would perhaps have had a chance to do something about all this in those years when he was in office. But it is an interesting topic. And, you know, I, I think the arrangements that we've got for passported benefits make sense.

But if there are proposals for alternative arrangements, will be interested to have a look at them. She was critical, as her hon. Friend was last week, of the use of the relative poverty measure for assessing the number of children growing up in poverty. But the relative poverty measure is the standard measure. It's the international standard measure, widely respected, used for all international comparisons. On this measure. The the reason I think the Conservative Party has always been so reluctant to refer to relative poverty is because its performance in government on the relative poverty measure has always been so dreadful consistently in the government that left office in 2024 and before that as well.

And so the point was made, rightly, in that debate on the the two child limit bill, that it was quite an important part of David Cameron's work to bring the Conservative Party up to date, that he embraced relative poverty as a valuable measure that ought to be taken into account. We now seem to have moved back to the Precambrian era in the Conservative Party, and I think it will take perhaps some time for the party to recognise the scale of the change that's needed in their thinking to reflect the country's current situation.

I was interested to what she said about her constituent on Pip. I would very much like to see the letter that she referred to because she's absolutely right. Pip is an in-work benefit as well as an out of work benefit, and I would be extremely concerned if people are being told, well, you're in work, you can't have Pip anymore. So I'd love to see that. And I you know, I think there are disincentives of that kind in the system that need to be addressed.

I'll be grateful to have a look at that. As she knows, I'm co-chairing a review of Pip, which will conclude by the autumn of this year. She said she didn't think it would happen by until 2027, but it will conclude by the autumn of this year. And she's right as well, that we need to increase the proportion of face to face assessments for benefit. Let me just I'll just make this point and then I'll gladly give way. The reason that face to face assessments are such a small proportion of total assessments at the moment is because of the contracts which the conservative government entered into towards the end of their term in office, which had no requirements for an adequate number of face to face assessments.

And indeed, the conservative government sold off most of the premises where many of these assessments were were took place where they were undertaken. So of course, it's taking some time to build up again the capacity to deliver those assessments. We are doing. So we are putting right the mistakes the previous government made, and we are seeing a steady increase in the proportion of both work capability assessments and Pip assessments that are undertaken on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a face to face basis. I'll gladly give way. Carla Lockhart I thank the Minister for giving way and accuracy and fairness is really important, and I think the face to face assessments are vitally important. I suppose when one looks important. I suppose when one looks at the trajectory on the 30% increase, I think it is a little increase, I think it is a little bit less than what I would like to see it at. I would like to see that more.

And can I give assurances to this House that it won't sit at 30%, that you will actually strive, that that the government will actually strive for greater face to face assessments? Nothing beats the white of the eye.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We would certainly like to do so. I mean, let's let's get up to that level that we've set, which is a level that we've set, which is a dramatic improvement on the situation that we inherited. And once we've done that, then we'll certainly learn the lessons and see what more we could do from there. And I very much welcome the And I very much welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend, the chair of the Select Committee, and commend her and her committee and commend her and her committee on its work.

She referred to the research published, I think, towards the end of last year, showing that children who suffer poverty and adversity in childhood are, as she said, five times more likely to be Neet as young adults. And I looked at that paper, it's a very interesting paper, and I think I'm right in saying that the paper did say if it was just below the poverty line. In other words, without the childhood adversity as well, to children who've grown up below the poverty line are three times more likely to be Neet as young adults.

So just looking at poverty on its own has a very big effect in increasing the likelihood of being Neet. And so in order to tackle this big Neet problem, and the opposition spokesperson was right to say that it does need tackling, then we do have to tackle child poverty, as we are doing with the the the scrapping of the two child limit in Universal Credit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll gladly give way to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about those two figures, but also the fact that it's over half of the current Neet it's over half of the current Neet cohort, 52.9% who are have experienced not just child child poverty, but also family adversity. poverty, but also family adversity. So and that is the five times figure. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to. And that's an interesting a very interesting paper. And I very much welcome research along those lines. And I know that she does. She's right to make the point that spending on Social Security is not rocketing. It's not sort of out of control as one sometimes reads between 10 and 11% of GDP. If you look just at the working age benefits, that's sort of 4 to 5%. Also pretty consistent, not changing rapidly at the moment.

She makes an interesting point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole did about the the current depth of poverty, and I think that's an important part of the picture that we need to address in our work. I agree with her that the Social Security system has a very important job to do. You cannot just sort of freeze it for a year and under up-rate it for another year, because if you do, you inflict harm. And we've seen that harm inflicted and the consequences of it.

And she's absolutely right as well, that we need a properly functioning health service. Again, we need support for good employment. And I'm pleased to hear from her. And indeed, the point was raised by the hon. Member for Torbay as well, that the Work and Pensions Select Committee has been listening to Sir Charlie Mayfield and the excellent Keep Britain Working review that he has published, the work that he's continuing to develop on that. And the hon. Member for Torbay rightly referred to the practice of shuffling people off the books.

I think too often what's happened is that people have run into a health problem in the course of their work. They have to take time off and then kind of by accident, really, those people lose touch with work, they lose touch with the workplace. They they become unemployed and and inactive. And if they've just been a bit of flexibility, a bit of continuing communication, then that outcome could have been avoided. And I really welcome the work that Sir Charlie Mayfield is doing with now over 100 Vanguard employers looking at how best to put these lessons into practice.

The hon. Member for Torbay also referred to the Carer's Allowance overpayments problem scandal, over which we appointed Liz Face OBE to, as he said, publish an independent review that looked at how overpayments had occurred, how affected carers could be supported, how to prevent future problems with overpayments arising. The review made 40 recommendations the government has accepted or partially accepted 38 of them. It's taken action to to raise the earnings limit in Carer's Allowance. We've increased it by a large amount, the largest amount it's ever increased and we are in future going to up-rate the earnings threshold annually in line with the increase in the national living wage, so that accidental exceeding of the earnings threshold will be less common.

But the Torbay also pointed out the difficulties that there are with the current cliff edge arrangements for the Carer's Allowance earnings threshold. And that's why the Chancellor announced in the 2024 Budget that we are looking at the introduction of an earnings taper instead of that cliff edge, and I think it may well be our conclusion that that would do a better job. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole. I don't think I ever expected there would be a Labour MP for Poole, but I'm delighted that my hon.

Friend was successful in being elected to that role, and long may he serve there as well. He's absolutely right to highlight the continuing scale of the challenge of pensioner poverty. I think if you look back over the record of the the former Labour government, we saw dramatic reductions both in child poverty and in pensioner poverty. Now with child poverty, those reductions were reversed under the coalition and the conservative government. With pensioners, we towards the end of the term of the conservative government, we we were saying the number of pensioners in poverty, that number going up again.

But it had it went up much less dramatically than the number of children growing up below the poverty line. So our priority has been to tackle child poverty. And that's the reason for the strategy that we have published and the changes to universal credit that we debated in the House last week. But I recognise there are continuing challenges for pensioners as well. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I. To conclude the this up-rating a debate where the government is increasing the basic state pension, the full rate of the new state pension, in line with earnings growth by 4.8%, meeting the government's commitment to the triple lock.

We're increasing the Pension Credit Standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings by 4.8% to support pensioners on the lowest incomes. We're increasing benefits to meet additional disability and carers. Benefits in line with prices by 3.8% were increasing. A number of working age benefits, statutory payments and disability benefits in line with prices by the same amount by 3.8%. So the the GMP increase order requires formally contracted out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMP for the reasons that I said earlier on in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997 to give a measure of protection for those pensioners against inflation that is paid for by their scheme.

And I commend both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of these orders to the House. OK. The question is the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. The question is the motion on the draft guaranteed minimum pensions increase order as on the pensions increase order as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no I opinion say I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion on the draft Social security benefits up. Rating. Order. benefits up. Rating. Order. Minister to move formally. Formally the question is the motion on the draft Social Security benefits Up-rating order as on the Order Paper.

As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'll now give a few moments for the front benches to swap over. Good to see you, Stephen. Thank you. And we now come to the motion on the draft child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating order, which will be debated together with the motion on the draft Social Security contributions rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and extension of Veterans Relief regulations.

I call the Minister to move the first motion. Minister.
15:54
15:54
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
thresholds National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran's Relief) Regulations 2026 be approved. The former sets the rates for both child benefit and Guardian's allowance, and will Guardian's allowance, and will ensure these benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible and HMRC delivers, are uprated by inflation in April 2026. The latter sets the rates of certain National Insurance contributions, classes and the level of certain thresholds for the 20 2627 tax year. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grants to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if required for the same tax year, through a transfer of wider government funds to the National Insurance Fund.

And finally, these regulations also extend the veteran's employer National Insurance Relief, for two years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until April 2028. Yes. Knowsley a quick question to the Minister in relation to and first Minister in relation to and first of all, welcome what the Minister is saying that there's it's positive. It's a good step forward positive. It's a good step forward for guardians, for carers, for veterans. And sometimes I, I have people who come to me and ask me people who come to me and ask me questions. Can't get any help with this, with the changes that come in and how it affects them.

And when and how it affects them. And when you give them more money, sometimes they fit into their tax bracket. So can I ask, Minister, is there help available for those who receive the the increase in the in the Guardians occurs the veterans in relation to their monies, just to make sure that there's somebody there who can help them through the process. Sometimes it's a myriad or it's almost like walking through a muddy field. They just don't know where to go next.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and he's right that there are a range of reliefs within the National Insurance system that help National Insurance system that help particular groups, young people, people who've served in our military. And it's and it's right military. And it's and it's right that those are there. And I'm glad that the government took the decision to extend the relief by two years. The government does two years. The government does publish guidance on the way that these reliefs can be used.

We aim to make sure that we can support the people who are seeking to employ the young people, or people who've served in the military with that guidance, so that they are able to make those employment decisions, because we do want to support through the tax system, the ability of particular groups to be able to be employed. And I thank him for his question. Turning to the detail of the Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating order 2026. As hon. Members will know, the government is committed to delivering a welfare system that's fair for taxpayers while while providing support for those who need it.

These regulations ensure the benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible and which HMRC delivers are up-rated by inflation. In April 26th child Benefit and Guardian's allowance will increase by 3.8%, in line with the Consumer Price Index in the year to September 2025. Tax Credits awards ended on the 5th of April 2025 and so no changes to rates will be required. Turning now to the second set of regulations before us today. As announced at Budget, the primary threshold and the lower profits limit thresholds will be maintained at their current levels until April 2031.

These regulations set the level for the 20 2627 tax year for employees entitlement towards contributory benefits, such as the state pension, is determined by their earnings being at or above the lower earnings limit. For self-employed people, their entitlement is determined by their earnings being at or above the small profits threshold. Madam Deputy Speaker these regulations up-rate the Lel and the SPT. This is the usual process and maintains the real level of income where someone gains entitlement to contributory benefits, the upper earnings limit for employee NICs and the upper profits limit for self-employed NICs are both the points at which the main rate falls to 2% are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax.

These thresholds will be maintained at their current levels, and these regulations set the level for the 2026 seven tax year as announced at the Budget last year. Employer National insurance thresholds, including the secondary threshold, are also maintained at their current levels. And we've had a had a brief discussion already about the employer NICs reliefs, including employer NICs relief for under 21, under 25 apprentices, veterans and new employees in Freeport and investment zones. The regulations we are debating today keep the thresholds for these reliefs at their current levels.

The regulations also make provision for the Knicks relief for employers of veterans to be extended for two years until April 2028, during which time the government will will continue to consider the most effective way to support veterans into employment as part of the next Spending Review settlement. Madam Deputy Speaker, without these regulations, child benefit and Guardian's allowance would fall in real terms and HMRC would be unable to collect NICs receipts. So I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them today.
15:59
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
The question is the motion on the draft Child Benefit and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's allowance Up-rating order as on the Order Paper I call Shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a great pleasure to be here this afternoon to debate these two S's with the to debate these two S's with the with the Exchequer Secretary. And as the Minister stated, these regulations are made each year and it is precedent for them to be debated on the floor of this House. And I'm glad to see that this precedent continues and hope that the government will keep this going for the remainder of its premiership, however long that may last.

So, turning to the measures in front of us today, I want to make it clear that we will not be voting against them when the debate concludes. However, I'd just like to comment on each side and the wider political discourse around them. The first set of regulations about Social Security set the rates of certain National Insurance contribution classes, and the level of certain thresholds for the 20 2627 tax year. Specifically, it will up-rate the lower earnings limit, the small profit threshold and the rates of class two and class three National Insurance contributions, and this will be increased by 3.8%, which is the consumer price index figure from September 2025.

All other limits and thresholds that these regulations cover will remain frozen at their current level. But what has been highlighted here by this is that the increase last year was 1.7%, compared to 3.8% this year. Both of these percentages represent the rate of inflation that is being paid by all that our constituents are suffering under. And of course, the 1.7% is what we left the government when we when they came to power, 3.8% is the level of inflation that the government is now is now delivering to consumers.

As I said, when we left office, inflation was at 2%. We had managed to get this down following a once in a generation pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis. So since labour has come in, inflation has risen almost every month and is now stuck at around 3.6%. Why is that? Because they are relentlessly pursuing policies instead of making practical solutions. And for example, the drive towards net zero course, we want to have net zero. Of course, we want to get to the point where we clean up our carbon footprints.

But but by going too far, this government has managed to put up energy bills by £300 since they were elected. Is it any wonder that inflation is so high and shows little sign of coming down any time soon? So? So I don't want to press the Minister on too many questions, but could he in due course let us know when when the government expects inflation to return to the target rate of 2%, which everybody agrees is where it should be. The other point I want to make is about this particular essay, is that it extends the employer, National Insurance contributions for veterans to 2028, and this means that businesses will continue to pay no employer NICs on salaries up to the veteran's upper secondary threshold of £50,000, £270 for the first year of their employment.

A very good thing. I think the Minister will agree. We introduced this relief in 2022, as we wanted to encourage as many employers as possible to help our veterans. These people have done a huge amount to protect our country, and it is important that we show our gratitude to them. The Minister is nodding and I'm sure he agrees with us at this point. Therefore, we welcome that the government have committed to extending this relief for the next two years. However, I do want to point out that in the Budget document, the government did say the following.

I quote. The government will extend the employer NICs relief for employers hiring veterans in their first civilian role to April 2020, 2028, from which point support for veterans into employment will be covered through Spending Review settlements rather than through this tax relief. So I know that the government have committed to consult on which way would be best to do this, and this is positive, and I hope that the Minister is open to continue to consider continuing this relief as an option.

If a suitable alternative can't be found. And and so in due course, it would be great if the Minister could or the government could let us know kind of what what what is being planned and what time frame we will have in order to understand what will be happening for for veterans. Turning to child benefit and Guardian's allowance. This like the previous one, this Statutory Instrument will up-rate child benefit and Guardian's allowance in line with CPI for the 2627 tax year.

So again, these increases are something we welcome, as these particular benefits are an important part of our welfare system. For example, Guardian's allowance is designed to provide further support to people who care for someone else's child. For example, if the child's parents have died. To these people who step in these guardian. So these people, the guardians, when they step in, are incredibly important to the upbringing of young children. We have a duty to support these people so that they can ensure the children they care for can have the best start in life.

However, whilst these particular state benefits are important, I have to say the government is abandoning their responsibilities to tackle the wider benefits bill. This time last year in this debate, the former Exchequer Secretary, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said, quote, the government is committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair to taxpayers while providing support to those who need it. When it came down to it, though, this government didn't take the opportunity to make those savings. Instead, it appears Madam Deputy Speaker they caved into their back benchers and we are now in a position where the benefit bill continues to balloon.

According to the times, even the Prime Minister has vetoed plans to reform the welfare system simply to avoid the embarrassment of yet another U-turn. And this simply isn't fair to taxpayers, and it isn't fair to the people who need this support the most. So I hope the Minister again, in due course, will set out when the needed benefits reforms will be brought forward and what steps he is taking to ensure taxpayers money is going to those who need it most. Overall though, Madam Deputy Speaker, we won't stand in the way of any of these S's in front of us today.

But as I say in due course, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but not necessarily this afternoon, though I would stress on those points I have raised. Thank you.
16:05
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat >> I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Steve Darling. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to welcome the proposals in respect of child benefit and guardianship allowance. I know when speaking to children of Torbay, you know, when I visit schools, it's disturbing. How many of them? Only two alive to the cost of living crisis. Worried about mum or dad not having enough money to put petrol in the car. Concerned about covering the bills. So whilst these aren't big amounts of money, we know that it all adds up and is helpful to these youngsters in our communities.

However, the National Insurance elements of this are continuing. The most significant misstep that the government undertook in this Parliament and that is the hikes and effectively shooting the goose that lays the golden egg of economic growth. I know from my conversations with businesses across Torbay and across the West of England, whether it's Paignton Zoo, woodlands or the waterpark. Splashdown, the limiting of of where you start to pay National Insurance contributions to £5,000 is crippling for lots of these seasonal businesses.

Because of the seasonality of this work. It then means that they're having to trim the opportunities for youngsters who be able to take on summer jobs. And I know from speaking to the owner of splashdown only a couple of weeks ago, she talks about talking to people who came back in later years who were now solicitors, airline pilots or doctors. But they learned the trade of getting into work on time, but going and working on a water park and so forth.

I'd then like to just reflect on particularly how it's hitting the hospitality industry across the West of England. The National Insurance hikes that this this, you know, draw draws out again that the fact that we've already seen massive increases of cost of fuel for for these businesses. And also what I hear from businesses is the uncertainty that they've got around the employment rights bill. So I would call upon the Minister and the government to make sure that they, you know, reflect on, as this is rolled out, limiting the impact and, you know, making sure that it is a soft introduction so it doesn't have a further devastating impact on our employment.

But most of all, I would reflect on how the National Insurance hike has impacted. And I would ask the Minister to reflect on that. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion on the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's allowance Up-rating Guardian's allowance Up-rating order as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say I I of the contrary, no I think the of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion on the draft now come to the motion on the draft social Security contributions rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National Insurance Funds Payments and extension of Veterans Relief formally. Move. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion on the draft of Social security contributions rates Limits and contributions rates Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and extension of Veterans Relief extension of Veterans Relief regulations as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say As many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.
16:09
None Portrait Motions: Debate on motions to approve the Draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s allowance Up-Rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026
-

We now come to motion number five relating to standing orders. Consideration of estimates. Minister Tamworth.
16:09
None Portrait Motion: Standing Orders (Consideration of Estimates)
-

>> I beg to move. >> The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion. Say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number six on terms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and conditions of employment. 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 I. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number seven on terms and conditions of employment. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as are of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Motion number eight on terms and conditions of I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number nine on electricity. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now move on to the petitions petition John Slinger. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the investment that has expanded and improved services at the Hospital of Saint Cross in the Hospital of Saint Cross in Rugby, but my constituents want urgent treatment to improve further and include more doctor led services. I have raised this issue with Ministers and in the House locally. I have convened roundtables with stakeholders, including community health organisations, councillors and campaigners to ensure their voices
16:11
16:12
Alan Mak Portrait Adjournment: Services at Oak Park Community Clinic Alan Mak MP (Havant, Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. >> The question is that this House do now adjourn. Alan Mak. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Havant constituency on behalf of Havant constituency residents and NHS patients, I welcome the opportunity to urgently raise in Parliament the sudden and raise in Parliament the sudden and distressing removal of diagnostic services at Oak Park Clinic in Havant. Oak Park is a vital community asset which has long played an important role in local healthcare provision.

In particular, it has provided a range of services including therapies, outpatient clinics and diagnostic checks for residents. It represents local, familiar and accessible care, particularly for sick, elderly and vulnerable people who struggle to travel. Some of these services remain, but the loss of diagnostics is a huge concern for my constituents in Havant. Langston Bedhampton, Emsworth, Hayling Island, Leigh Park, Purbrook Stakes and Widley withdrawal of diagnostic services at Oak Park took place suddenly, immediately before Christmas and came with no warning.

In fact, there was no consultation with patients, local GPS, community groups or care providers. The local reaction to this removal has been both outrage and fear. This is the time of the year Madam Deputy Speaker, when the NHS and its patients feel the most pressure and frankly, the timing of the withdrawal could not have been worse. My thoughts are also with the staff who worked at Oak Park providing diagnostic services, because I understand they only received a month's notice themselves that this work would be ending.

Personally, I was not notified before or even immediately after the withdrawal of services by any of the local NHS bodies or service providers in particular, I heard nothing from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board who commission and oversee these services at Oak Park. In fact, the first contact I had from the ICB was yesterday morning. Once this debate had been confirmed and I now look forward to learning from the ICB about how it intends to replace the services lost at Oak Park.

I welcome the commitment that the ICB gave to me yesterday to provide what they call a strong neighbourhood model for delivering diagnostic services to the constituency. I hope they deliver on that commitment, and I welcome the Minister's support in holding the ICB accountable for delivering it. The Icbs told me that the ending of diagnostic services at Oak Park was taken by the NHS provider, and that it was not an ICB decision, but the general failure to communicate with people affected by the closure has caused widespread confusion, anger and fear.

It is disappointing Madam Deputy Speaker that nearly two months on from the removal of diagnostic services at Oak Park, there is still no clear information in the public domain about the background behind the removal, no agreement about a way forward and no news about whether temporary vision, for example, through a mobile diagnostic unit, is feasible. Madam Deputy Speaker, the importance of diagnostic provision in Havant cannot be overstated. Havant War Memorial Hospital closed in September 2011 and at the time, local people were assured that replacement facilities would maintain accessible health care in the community.

It was Oak Park Clinic that provided the reassurance that healthcare would indeed remain close to home. The message from residents, patients, GPS and the whole community is clear. Diagnostic services must be restored locally by the NHS and the ICB to a central location in the constituency, either at Oak Park or another suitable site. In the meantime, there must be interim provision again in the constituency, for example via a mobile unit or temporary facilities. Local people deserve nothing less and my campaigns get the government, the ICB and the NHS to deliver will continue as the Minister knows.

Diagnostics are the gateway to treatment. Oak Park offered x ray ultrasound and echocardiogram services. These are basic but vital services which inform clinicians quickly about the health of a patient and allow them to decide what further tests or treatment are necessary. If these checks are delayed or unavailable, it can have appalling health consequences for patients slowing their access to treatment or even cutting it off altogether. The cumulative effect is to increase referrals into already pressured acute settings, such as Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth, and undermine the cohesion of local NHS services.

When I'm Deputy Speaker, the alternative to the facilities at Oak Park is to divert my constituents to Saint Mary's Community Health Campus in Portsmouth. This is hugely inconvenient for them because travel into Portsmouth from communities in the Havant constituency is difficult at the best of times. Saint Mary's is located on Portsea Island in the city, and there are only three roads on and off the island. The roads, the road most likely to be used by people travelling from my constituency. The eastern road, has been closed in one direction for several weeks for sewer repair works.

It will remain closed until next month at the earliest. Traffic disruption has been appalling for anybody travelling to Portsmouth on any route, and my constituents tell me they have been affected when travelling to and from Saint Mary's. Setting aside the temporary issues caused by the closure of the Eastern Road, Saint Mary's is in any event poorly served by public transport from any of the communities in the constituency. There is no direct bus link between the Havant constituency and the campus. Saint Mary's is more than a mile and a half from the nearest railway station, and there is no bus from the railway station to the campus.

Residents from Hayling Island in my constituency have to go to Saint Mary's instead of Oak Park, facing especially arduous journey consisting of a minimum of three bus journeys taking at least an hour and a half in each direction during peak periods. Given the terrible traffic conditions in Portsmouth, this is likely to take much longer and risk appointments being missed. You will not be surprised Madam Deputy Speaker that I've been contacted by GP surgeries in my constituency, expressing in the strongest terms their dismay at the Oak Park situation.

The Elms practice on Hayling Island has highlighted the length and difficulty of the journey to Saint Mary's, as well as the additional cost of the longer journey, which many patients simply cannot absorb. The practice highlights the risk of missed opportunities and diagnoses, particularly for patients with chronic conditions. The additional stress of the longer journey for patients with already limited mobility who are living with disabilities is intolerable. Madam Deputy Speaker I have also heard similar concerns from the Homewell curlew GP practice in Havant, close to the GP site close to the Oak Park site, whose patients now face much longer journeys.

The problem was also raised with me last week in person by a manager at a care home in Havant. She told me that their patients are having to spend £50 or more on a round trip by taxi into Portsmouth. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. When I'm Deputy Speaker. This is not just an issue for my constituents. The additional burden of more patients arriving at Saint Mary's will, in fact affect people living in neighbouring constituencies who would normally use Saint Mary's for diagnostic checks.

The loss of capacity at Oak Park is having a considerable regional impact, and it appears this sudden withdrawal of services is not an isolated example. My hon. Friend, the Member for Romsey and Southampton North cannot speak in this debate as she also serves as Deputy Speaker. But we have discussed the loss of phlebotomy services from Romsey Hospital because of an ICB decision. I understand her constituents now have to travel to Southampton or even Lymington for appointments. My hon. Friend has characteristically spoken up for her constituents very effectively.

I know she will continue to do so in terms of wider NHS engagement. Madam Deputy Speaker I have a good relationship with all my local NHS bodies and I want to continue that constructive approach to improve patient outcomes. The loss of these services at Oak Park came shortly after I had a positive meeting with the new chair of Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS trust, which manages Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth. This is the general hospital which serves my constituency and people across much of south east Hampshire.

We had a good discussion about the importance of local provision of basic services. Whilst the trust does not manage the Oak Park facility, when things go wrong with diagnosis, it is on Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth that the burden mostly falls. I successfully lobbied the last conservative government to secure funding for the new emergency department at Queen Alexandra Hospital, which serves my constituency. However, it is already clear that even with a new editor, the hospital is facing capacity challenges. So anything that gets patients into the right care pathway first time at the earliest opportunity helps ease that pressure.

And diagnostic services play a key part in that. The public see the NHS as a monolithic structure. And when things go wrong in one part, as has happened with Oak Park, constituents, find it confusing and disempowering. The NHS and the ICB must put that right. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that following this debate, as well as securing a return of the diagnostic facilities, we can have a broader conversation about wider provision for my constituents when it comes to health. For example, an urgent treatment centre in the constituency would further ease the pressure on both QA and Saint Mary's.

I have always been clear that empowering patients helps them lead healthier, longer lives, whether it's through digital transformation or through being able to access basic, timely care locally and in a convenient way. For that reason, I successfully campaigned for the Emsworth Victoria Hospital building to be retained by the NHS so it could become the new home for Emsworth Medical Practice, which is now a superb resource for all its patients. We all lead busy lives and proximity to good, local, high quality healthcare services is vital.

I also know the GP practices on Hayling Island need better facilities and I've been working with them, the ICB and other NHS bodies to bring that about. But first we have to fix the Oak Park issue and bring those diagnostic services back. In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I three requests for the Minister. Firstly, will he commit the NHS to restoring diagnostic services locally in the constituency in a permanent setting as quickly as possible? Whether Oak Park or at another site? Secondly, while the permanent restoration process continues, will he support the provision of temporary diagnostic services in the constituency, for example through a mobile unit or a temporary site? And thirdly, will he meet me to discuss how the ICB and the NHS bodies can quickly move to restore these diagnostic services in the Havant constituency and learn the lessons from the Oak Park situation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the hard working NHS staff who provide such fantastic support for my constituents all year round, and I call on the Minister to ensure my constituents have their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access to local diagnostic services restored in the constituency as quickly as possible. Thank you. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. And just before starting, I wanted to note before starting, I wanted to note that this policy lead is actually my hon. Friend, the Minister for health. She sends her apology. She's not able to be here today, but I will, of course, report back to her. And and I'm sure that she'd to her. And and I'm sure that she'd be more than happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's request for a meeting for further discussions.

I congratulate the Member for Havant
16:23
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
on securing this debate on the provision of diagnostic services in Havant, and specifically at Oak Havant, and specifically at Oak Park Community Clinic. This is a very important matter to his constituents and of course it has. It resonates more broadly across communities right across our communities right across our country. Diagnostic services are a critical part of our NHS, and for patients, they are crucial to patients, they are crucial to helping them get peace of mind about their symptoms or clarity on the next stage of their care.

Reducing the waiting times for diagnostic tests is critical to achieving both our elective waiting times and cancer waiting time ambitions. Prior to this debate, the department has received correspondence from GPS working in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on this very issue. I therefore completely understand the concern shared by the hon. Member and the concerns of his constituents. I hope that I can provide a helpful update on the situation and set out the steps being taken to resolve this issue.

Until recently, a range of diagnostic services were provided at Oak Park Community Clinic. Services were delivered in partnership between the NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board, and an independent healthcare provider practice group. As the hon. Member has just said, Practice Plus Group took the decision with limited notice to move equipment for non-obstetric, ultrasound, x ray and echocardiography away from Oak Park Community Clinic to Saint Mary's Community Hospital in Portsmouth. With regard to the request to meet to discuss the circumstances of the suspension of these service at Oak Park Clinic, I will ensure that a request is passed on to my colleague, the Minister for health.

I can inform the hon. Gentleman here that the closure is because Practice Plus Group took the view that the lease no longer represented value for money. I can fully appreciate the disruption that this is causing in the Havant area. For patients who now face longer travel times and inconvenience to receive care. I am aware that the ICB has communicated with all referring organisations affected and is working to mitigate disruption, including reviewing alternative provision to ensure continuity of diagnostic services for patients in the Havant area.

In the meantime, patients can be referred to Practice Plus Group services at the Saint Mary Community Campus in Portsmouth for these diagnostic tests. Queen Alexandra Hospital in Cosham is also providing diagnostic services and is of course accessible to many patients across Havant. For some, it is likely that this will be more convenient and should be offered as a location for diagnostic tests. The hon. Member for Havant will be aware that Oak Park Community Diagnostics Centre is also located at Oak Park Community Clinic.

The Non-obstetric Ultrasound Service at Oak Park Community Clinic was until recently provided as part of the Community Diagnostic Centre. X ray and echocardiography, while provided at the same site, are separate to the CDC operations. When the Community Diagnostics Centre was first approved, Portsmouth University Hospitals NHS trust Commissioned Practice Plus Group to deliver non-obstetric ultrasound activity for the centre. This arrangement would utilise Practice Plus Group's equipment and room with sonographers are employed by the trust delivering the tests.

I can today confirm to the hon. Member for Havant and to the House that Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS trust are preparing to recommence non-obstetric ultrasound at Oak Park CDC this month, with financial support from NHS England's National Diagnostic Programme. The trust has been able to purchase an additional scanner for this site. In the meantime. Oak Park CDC continues to provide symptomatic mammography, mammography, mammography, ophthalmology assessment and peripheral neurophysiology assessments at the Oak Park Community Clinic site.

The hon. Gentleman has asked about the possibility of temporary pop up facilities to restore all services at Oak Park. I am informed that the ICB is working closely with Practice Plus Group to resolve this issue, and is looking for a solution to restore x ray and echocardiography at Oak Park Community Clinic for patients. Community provision of diagnostic services such as Oak Park Clinic, are a central part plank of our plan to make the NHS fit for the future. We are committed to bringing more diagnostic services into community settings, and to make healthcare more accessible to patients who might face barriers to hospital access, including those with mobility issues, caring responsibilities or limited transport options.

We have committed, as part of our elective reform plan, to build up to five more CDCs as part of our £600 million capital investment for diagnostics in 20 2526. We are also working to ensure more CDCs are open 12 hours a day, seven days a week, delivering more same day tests and consultations, and an expanded range of tests. Since coming to office in July, 24 CDCs have delivered over 10.9 million CDC tests and scans. CDCs are a vital step in supporting our shift from hospital to community.

They provide patients with access to vital tests, scans and checks around busy working lives closer to home. We are setting clear expectations for NHS providers on diagnostic performance. Our medium term planning guidance sets out the ambition that performance against the diagnostic six week wait constitutional standard will improve so that no more than 1% of patients wait more than six weeks from referral for a diagnostic test. By March 2029, and we have set an interim milestone that no more than 20% of patients wait over six weeks.

By March 2027, for NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB, we recognise that significant improvements in performance will be required. Performance is currently at 29.5% at November 2025, so there is clearly a long way to go in 2526. NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB were allocated £49.3 million of capital funding from the Constitutional Standards Recovery Fund, announced by the Chancellor at the Spending Review, aimed at supporting NHS performance across secondary and emergency care. This includes supporting new capacity and productivity improvements in diagnostic services.

This is part of over £6 billion of additional capital investment over five years across new diagnostic, elective and urgent care capacity to deliver the improvements to the NHS that patients need and deserve so that the NHS is there for them when they need it. So I want to end by again thanking the hon. Member for Havant for tabling this important debate and raising this issue, and I congratulate him once again on securing this important debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are Battersea. I. The ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page