Budget Resolutions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I was going to say that it is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). At the beginning of the debate, we talked about films with the shadow Chancellor, and the hon. Lady reminds us of “Back to the Future”, as that really was 2010 all over again. Perhaps a couple of steps to the right, so to speak, may well be in order.

My constituents in Dunfermline and Dollar tell me every week what matters to them, and that is what the Chancellor has delivered in her Budget speech. She delivered on the main issues that affect people by bringing down the cost of living, ensuring that working people in every corner of the country keep more of what they earn. It is a Labour Budget in every sense of the word, focused on helping the people who need it most, lifting families out of poverty and creating new opportunities for the future.

I am proud to be one of the founding members of the living standards coalition on the Labour Benches. We hear every day how important these issues are, and we have pressed for these changes simply because we know that these are the actions that matter most to the people in our constituencies and will make their lives better. The alternative proposed by Opposition Members is also something out of a film, except that film is “The Wolf of Wall Street”—a failed ideological lurch back to hated austerity: the cruel experiment that shattered public services and pushed millions of people across the country into poverty and despair.

Yesterday in the Budget, the Chancellor announced that there will be no return to those dark times. We will see responsible choices that stabilise the economy and put money back into people’s pockets. With the increase in the national living wage and the national minimum wage, the Chancellor has shown yet again that the Government are laser focused on making work pay, ensuring that those who work hard to get ahead feel a sense of fairness. To the 10,000 Fifers who will benefit from these measures, I say, “The Labour Government are fighting for you now and will go on fighting for you day in, day out.”

The Government have shown what matters most to the British people: no more fear and uncertainty from Tory mismanagement, bills down, wages up, pensions up and more money in people’s pockets. That was a promise made by Labour and kept by this Labour Government.

We have already seen the Government deliver trade deals. Just last week, a £4 billion agreement with Indonesia secured hundreds of jobs at Rosyth in my constituency. Today, the Chancellor confirmed that the Budget will see no return to austerity in Scotland, with the Scottish Government receiving a further £820 million, putting Scotland at the heart of the Budget. Sadly, Scots have seen lengthened NHS waiting times, delayed trains and struggling schools, but the Budget has laid the foundation that will allow Anas Sarwar as First Minister in Scotland to rebuild north as well.

Keeping fuel costs down is vital for my constituents— I have led campaigns on that during my time in Parliament —so I very much welcome the Chancellor’s fuel duty freeze and the other measures to support people and small businesses in Dunfermline and Dollar.

We are also looking after the older generations—particularly people who have served our country and powered our past. One of the Government’s first acts was to right a historic wrong by overturning the injustice that diminished the mineworkers’ pension scheme and returning pension funds to the pockets of retired miners. The day after the previous Budget, I discussed with the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury the need to support members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Thanks to me and coalfield MPs from across the Labour party, the Chancellor announced that change, which will benefit 176 families in my constituency and almost 700 across Fife. I pay tribute to BCSSS campaigners across the country, including Alan Kenney in my constituency. Justice for BCSSS members means more money in the pockets of the retired workers whose labour quite literally kept the lights on in this country, ensuring that they have financial flexibility and security, which inevitably boosts the local economy.

This Budget supports working families and lifts them out of poverty. As others have said, we cannot allow a false choice to exist; we must always remember that 70% of children in poverty come from working families. Those are hard-working people who are trying to support their children but who need just a little more help from this Labour Government. The scrapping of the two-child limit will benefit an estimated 1,400 children in my constituency alone.

While we are talking about righting historic wrongs, something about which I have not heard much in this debate is the Labour Government’s covid counter-fraud commissioner recovering £430 million of our money from scammers enabled by the Conservative party.

Fife will also benefit from £40 million of pride in place funding thanks to this Government’s support for local communities, which will build local infrastructure, improve skills and increase community capacity where it is needed most. That funding is available only because of the choices made by this Government and the Chancellor. We will use the funds we have to support the people who need it most, bringing down bills, putting more money in people’s pockets and creating a prosperous economic future.

This Budget is about fairness, stability and hope. It delivers for Dunfermline and Dollar, for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. Promises were made, and promises have been kept. This is a future we can believe in, and the Budget will have my full support.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

In reflecting on the title that the Government have offered up for today’s Budget resolutions debate, “Economic Sustainability and Fair Choices”, I have found myself wondering on what planet anyone could possibly call yesterday’s Budget sustainable or fair. The forecasts show that GDP growth will be down in every year from 2026 to 2029, consumer prices index inflation will be up 3.5% this year, taxes will increase by £26 billion, the unemployment rate will hit 4.9% in 2026, the size of the state itself will increase to 44.8% of GDP, borrowing will go up £11 billion, and debt interest will be higher in every year of the forecast. That is not the makings of a sustainable economy or growth, and it is certainly not fair on the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden to pay for it all.

As I visit businesses in my constituency—the retailers and hospitality businesses on the high streets of Wendover, Princes Risborough, Great Missenden; the village pubs; the furniture manufacturers in Princes Risborough and the surrounds; and the rocket scientists and big businesses at Westcott venture park—they all paint a picture of preparing for things to get worse. They say that they are not planning to take on new employees or apprentices.

[Graeme Downie]

Did the hon. Gentleman have a similar conversation with his constituents after Liz Truss’s disastrous Budget, which he supported? What did they say?

[Greg Smith]

Labour Members are like a broken record. The last Conservative Government certainly made a number of mistakes—we have put our hands up to that—but we left employment high and unemployment at a record low, and jobs were being created every single day.

Now, businesses are not taking on—or are planning not to take on—more new starters, or, like Rumsey’s Chocolaterie on Wendover High Street, have already had to lay people off or cut their hours because of employer NI, business rates and the looming Employment Rights Bill. Those are the real-world consequences of the Labour Government’s policies. The dividends tax in the Budget struck right at the heart of the entrepreneurs—the small business owners—who risk everything to create growth, employ people and create the jobs that we want in our economy. It has sent them the message: “There will be less in it for you, if anything at all.” Many of those businesses operate on narrow margins, working their socks off almost for nothing, and this Government are making it even harder for them. That is no way to run an economy.

I am lucky enough to have many farmers in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, where around 90% of the land is agricultural, and I talk to them as often as I can. My party held an emergency food and farming summit at Fleet Marston farm in my constituency a couple of weeks ago, where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), joined me to again hear directly from farmers about the impact the family farm tax will have. They will have to either sell up to a third of their farm to meet that tax bill or take on a level of debt that it will take over 40 years to pay back.

The National Farmers Union, many other organisations and farmers directly have tried to reach out, including yesterday on Whitehall, to get Labour MPs and Ministers to listen and understand the real-world consequences of their decisions. And yet the Budget yesterday was entirely lacking anything other than the transferable allowance to take away the stress, anxiety and existential threat to British agriculture that the family farm tax and changes to business property relief represent to family businesses and family farms up and down the country. I can assure anyone who challenges the point I am making that it will not be other farmers who buy the land when farms have to sell to meet the inheritance tax bill—it will be property developers and those with all sorts of other concerns, who will not keep that land in food production. The nation’s food security will suffer as a direct result of the failure to scrap the family farm tax yesterday.

I want to talk briefly about another issue I have been focused on for a number of years, during the last Parliament and this one. I draw the House’s attention to my co-chairmanship of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the new Exchequer Secretary for the time they have taken to reach out on this issue. Some of the announcements yesterday were welcome, off the back of the McCann review. However, I am sorry to say to the House that they have not been met with total joy from the victims of the loan charge, because many people caught up in the loan charge are still being asked to pay amounts of money that they simply cannot afford.

The Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers are on the record saying, when in opposition, that the victims of the loan charge were “victims of mis-selling” and that the perpetrators—those who promoted these schemes—should have been brought to justice. What we got yesterday was nothing of the sort. We did not get the fully independent review that the APPG and the Loan Charge Action Group have been calling for.

Despite the concessions yesterday, many people simply will not be able to pay. Two thirds of the victims are now over 55, 40% are over 60 and a quarter are already retired. They just do not have the ability to find the amounts of money being asked for, and the offer on the table is nothing like the settlement made with the big banks some years ago, which was in the region of 10% to 15%. I urge the Exchequer Secretary to look at this again and to deliver a genuinely fair settlement to everyone caught up by the loan charge and pursue those who sold the schemes.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Many of the measures announced yesterday will make a real difference to the lives of the people I represent back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. To whom much is given, much is expected. The Labour party received a mandate and the trust of the people last year, so we must get on with the job of getting our country back on track, and this Budget helps us do that.

Communities like mine in the industrial heartlands believe that hard work should always pay off, that people should contribute their fair share, that nobody should walk by on the other side, as Holy Scripture tells us, and that everyone in our United Kingdom should be able to live with dignity and opportunity and to get by and get on. Nobody in a country like ours, rich in people, ambition and potential, should ever be forced to choose between heating and eating. Nobody should be left living on social security when they can and should, if able, be at work, benefiting from the dignity and power that work provides.

I am grateful for the announcement on the BCSSS. That change is something that I have campaigned hard for, alongside colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), and my Staffordshire colleagues and neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—and yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), and many others. Men and women from Newcastle-under-Lyme who worked down the pits in our coal industry, fuelled our economy and kept the lights on, will now finally get the justice that they deserve. They will get the money that they are owed, and it cannot come fast enough.

In our United Kingdom, no child should grow up in poverty. That is why I welcome the decision to tackle real injustice and inequality, and lift 1,770 children out of poverty in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am glad that two local schools back home—the Meadows school and Langdale primary school—have already received funding for breakfast clubs. I look forward to more local schools benefiting, so that no child goes to school hungry.

Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many wonderful family farms and the farmers and families who live on them—people who tend to our land, feed us and keep our country going. I have raised their concerns, which I share, about the proposed changes to APR for farmers. I welcome the sensible concession in the Budget that will allow for a clearer and smoother transfer of reliefs between married couples and civil partners, but I urge colleagues on the Front Bench to consider the threshold. Going for the baddies who land bank is the right thing to do, because those who should pay must be made to pay, but we must not allow an unintended impact on small family farms.

[Graeme Downie]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of family farms; I have a number of them in my constituency. Does he agree that it is important to strike a balance in his part of the country, as well as in the devolved Administrations, and to put the tax burden in the correct place, while protecting small family farms?

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gives voice to the fact that we are one United Kingdom, and the same approach must be taken in Scotland as in the centre of our collective universe, Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is important to note that the challenges facing our farming industry did not start last July—we all know that—but this Government now have the chance to give our farmers the support that, I am afraid, the previous Conservative Government failed to.

It is easy to be gloomy about the state of the world, but there is always hope. This weekend marks the first anniversary since the cowboy operators at Walley’s quarry landfill site were closed down; 147 days into my time as our MP, we finally secured justice for the people in my community who were forced to live with the disgusting and disgraceful situation at Walley’s. That is a sign that things can only get better, and I pay tribute to all the campaigners who worked so hard with me over my first 147 days as MP.

With this Budget, we are fixing the roof—and while the sun may not be shining, it certainly is not raining outside. We will see more children eating properly and not going to school hungry; more parents able to work without worrying about childcare; and more former miners finally getting justice and the money that they are rightfully owed. We will see prescription charges and rail fares frozen; more pensioners able to afford to heat their homes and buy Christmas presents for their grandchildren; and the disgusting rape clause gone. We will see more people able to afford their energy bills, which will be cut by £150, and more young people will be supported into life-changing education and employment opportunities. We will see support for farmers, but there is much more to do on that. I hope that the Minister has heard that, for the third time this speech.

There is more support for universities and colleges, such as Keele University and Newcastle College in my constituency. They will receive the support that they need to continue providing a world-class British education. We will see more doctors, nurses and NHS staff getting the credit and support that they richly deserve. I declare an interest, as my wife is a nurse—an excellent one, as are all her colleagues.

The Budget will not change the country overnight. It will not solve every issue immediately, but it sets us on a path to a fairer, better and more inclusive United Kingdom. I will always shout loudly when we show the difference that a Labour Government can make. I will speak truth to power when we need to do things better, and I will always ensure that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme are heard loudly and proudly in this place. We have much to do, so let’s get on with it.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ann Davies]

I am just coming to the end of my remarks, if the hon. Member does not mind. I am keeping to my four-minute time limit.

The Bill should be scrapped. It is neither fair nor compassionate welfare reform. It is not fit for our constituents.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.

I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria,

“at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.”

Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”.

I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he has done on this, and for helpfully highlighting that concern. It might help if I read briefly to him what the current training material for people applying the severe conditions criteria says about what level of function will always meet limited capability for work and work related activity:

“Although this criterion refers to a level of function that would always meet LCWRA, this does not in any way exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.

The key issue is that the person’s condition is not subject to such variability that their function would ever be significantly improved from the LCWRA descriptor identified”.

I hope that that, together with my earlier intervention, will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

I very much thank the Minister for his intervention, which I think will provide extensive reassurance to those with Parkinson’s and other conditions. I will keep a watching brief on this measure as it progresses, and I am aware that Parkinson’s UK has today received its own legal advice, which indicates that the application of the measure might not be quite as clear as the Minister intends.

My other concern is about the perhaps undue burden that the measure places on the guidance, as well as the perhaps unfair position in which it puts an assessor, which could lead to an inconsistent application of the guidance.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know, as do many Members, that my father-in-law died from Parkinson’s two and a half weeks ago, so this is a personal issue for both me and my family, and for many constituents who have written to me in recent weeks regarding their concerns about the lack of clarity. I add my support to my hon. Friend’s calls for clarity. Although I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, we must ensure that we get this right, and get it right soon.

[Graeme Downie]

I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with my hon. Friend and his family. I know what a challenging time it has been, and the fact that he has been able to carry on his duties extensively, representing his constituents, is to his credit and something that his family will be incredibly proud of.

As I said, the Minister has been generous with his time, and I do not believe for a moment that his intention is to restrict access to the severe conditions criteria for those with Parkinson’s. Those words from the Dispatch Box are incredibly helpful, but I ask him to ensure that he keeps a close eye on the situation.

[Robin Swann]

As the hon. Member knows, I signed his amendment, but may I caution him before he accepts the Minister’s very kind guidance? Will he clarify that it is guidance? This is training documentation and it is subject to change. It is not contained anywhere in the Bill or the amendments, so what the Minister read to the Committee was simply training guidance.

[Graeme Downie]

Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern.

My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—

[Patricia Ferguson]

rose—

[Graeme Downie]

I am happy to take one final intervention.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. As a signatory to his amendment, I wonder whether his discussions with the Minister have included someone with a condition such as relapsing-remitting MS who can spend long periods appearing to be perfectly healthy, but then have other periods when a crisis occurs and they are debilitated by their condition. Will the provisions that the Minister describes be sympathetic to those sorts of situations?

[Graeme Downie]

As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need.

Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 36. Over the past weeks, I have met numerous disability organisations, from Parkinson’s UK to Action for ME, and heard directly from those living with complex fluctuating conditions. I have also seen the impact at first hand as an employer of people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen and lived is simple: the current proposals risk unacceptable consequences for those who are already among the most vulnerable. The Government’s redefinition of “severe conditions” hinges on the word “constantly”—a single word that is of dubious clinical value. I appreciate the clarification given to other Members, but it is very late in the day to be getting such important information.

Conditions such as ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, MS, epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable and they fluctuate, yet the Bill would exclude many individuals who have them from vital support, simply because their symptoms do not comply with a Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that our assessment system respects the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. This affirms the principle of non-retrogression so that we do not roll back hard-won rights. It insists that we take invisible and episodic conditions seriously, and it protects people from falling through the cracks.

The Bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament, and at this point the most obvious course of action would be simply to pull it altogether and start again. I realise the political difficulties that that may involve, but vulnerable people’s lives are at stake. When the Government come to look again at some of the deleted clauses via the Timms review, it is essential to approach the issue from a “needs first” angle, not a “how much can I save?” angle, because so many Government cuts in the past have ended up costing more than they have saved.

I accept that the Government do not have infinite funds, but the PIP proposal represented an arbitrary change in eligibility—the four-point rule—with the crude objective of making a predetermined saving. It has all been the wrong way around: we should wait to understand needs first, and only then consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them.

Welfare Reform

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

As I said in my statement, existing PIP claimants will continue to have that benefit. It will not be affected even if they have a reassessment, and neither will all the passported benefits. Carer’s allowance is the best known, but all passported benefits will be included in that protection.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

This morning I met Parkinson’s UK, which is very concerned about the changes to both PIP and universal credit, and in particular that they will not take account of those with variable conditions. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that Parkinson’s UK will be involved in the co-design of the changes to PIP, universal credit and other welfare benefits, and that any welfare change will fully consider those with Parkinson’s and other variable conditions?

[Liz Kendall]

I am absolutely sure that Parkinson’s UK will be involved closely in the PIP review.

Work and Pensions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Work and Pensions questions on 23 June 2025.

[Graeme Downie]

My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I remind Members that topical questions and answers should be brief.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T2. My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?

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

We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I am very sorry to hear of those specific examples. I will take away the point about telephone communication and come back to the hon. Gentleman, but it may be worth our having a broader conversation about his concerns. I will happily meet him to discuss any of the specifics of the cases he cited.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

In response to a number inquiries that I have had from constituents over the last couple of months, will the Minister say whether reforms to the Child Maintenance Service will include consideration of the paying parent’s capital assets and voluntary pension payments when calculating the rate at which unpaid payments should be made?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be aware of the recent consultation on the future administration and operation of the Child Maintenance Service. I do not want to prejudge the decisions that will follow as a result of that consultation, but I can tell him that we are considering the next steps at present, and I will update him and the House in due course.

Food Banks

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

That is pressure, Ms Vaz; It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this debate.

Every Member wants to reduce the number of people relying on food banks and to tackle poverty effectively. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East chose to reference so many devolved policy areas—he made clear in his point of order in the Chamber yesterday that he does not believe that such behaviour belongs in Parliament.

I shall begin by thanking the 200 volunteers who operate the Dunfermline food bank in my constituency. It has one site in Dunfermline itself and four satellite sites around the area. It is led by the fantastic Sandra, whom I was delighted to meet over the summer. I spoke to Sandra again this week and asked her for an update. She said that, in the year from April ’23 to March ’24, the Dunfermline food bank fed just under 9,000 people, approximately one third of whom were children.

The Government have already delivered a genuine living wage in Scotland, meaning a pay rise for more than 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots and £3.4 billion of extra funding for Scotland. The question now for the SNP is: how will they spend that? There are no hiding places. Will they carry on as they have to date, scrapping the fuel insecurity fund from £30 million to zero, cutting and scrapping the parental transition fund, and driving more people towards food banks?

I genuinely hope that the SNP take action in their budget in December to tackle poverty, and I truly hope that they are successful, but the warning signs are not positive. Groups such as the Poverty and Inequality Commission and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have said that we are running out of ways to stress the need for rapid action from the Scottish Government.

Food banks and the Trussell Trust have told us that the cap on universal credit deductions is one of the main things pushing people towards food bank use. That is why I am delighted that the Budget last month reduced the cap from 25% to 15%. Is this the limit of what the Government and I want to achieve? Absolutely not, but the Budget set a clear direction and showed the priorities of the Labour Government. I will return to Sandra, who said to me:

“I am the only person who wants to see my job eliminated. I want to be out of a job, because it would mean we have successfully ended the need for food banks in this country.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. What he has described sounds very odd indeed, and I will be happy to look at the details if he will let me see them. We are absolutely committed to making sure that universal credit does the job that we need it to, including for people in the situation that his constituent has found herself in.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Last week, I was made aware of a constituent who is a carer for his wife, who experienced a stroke in 2016. The constituent is a veteran who lives with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was awarded carer’s allowance in 2017. Late last year, the DWP began demanding the return of more than £51,000 in alleged universal credit overpayments, and this April, under the previous Government, the DWP began taking it from his state pension without warning. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case in more detail so that I can help my constituent?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As my hon. Friend will know, there have been some very troubling cases of carer’s allowance overpayment. I am not sure whether carer’s allowance is part of the overpayment he describes, but I will be very happy to meet him to discuss what has gone wrong in this case.