Milburn Review: Interim Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Liz Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“strict silica safety standards applied”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Sir Stephen Timms]

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

In addition to all your work in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so much behind the scenes, you are also a constituency MP. Like me, like the Minister, and like the other Members here this evening, you will be written to by your constituents, and I am sure that you and your team will know how incredibly frustrating it is when we cannot get Government systems right. That is why we are here this evening, and I hope the Minister will provide some constructive responses about departmental improvements.

The issue I want the Minister to address is the fact that Department for Work and Pensions systems are continually failing to understand and correctly account for Scottish carers who have an underlying entitlement to the Scottish carer support payment, but who do not receive the payment itself because of income—for example their state pension or part-time work. I am currently supporting two constituents who see continual wrongful deductions. One has passed state pension age, and the other receives employment and support allowance. They do not receive any payments for the carer support payment from Social Security Scotland, but the DWP continues to make those deductions from their universal credit—I hope colleagues are keeping up.

I want to pause at this point and reflect on how long it has taken for us to know what is causing the confusing and distressing deductions from my constituents’ payments. My fantastic caseworker Neve has spent literally months trying to unravel payments and deductions, while being told different things by different DWP and Social Security Scotland caseworkers. I have met the Minister for Social Security and Disability in relation to one of those cases, and he is aware from previous correspondence of the myriad communication problems that we had in one particular case, with DWP officers calling my constituent and causing considerable distress.

My constituent was inadvertently misled—I like to think it was inadvertent—about where and when voicemails could be left, and there was a general refusal to engage with my office, despite requests to do so because my constituent, in addition to having learning difficulties and being a carer for his family, was also going through cancer treatment. Those are all underlying issues within the Department for Work and Pensions and do not specifically relate to Social Security Scotland, but we see similar confusion with almost every case that comes through our office, and we need it to be sorted.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate—I spoke to her about it beforehand, just as I spoke to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Northern Ireland we see the same breakdown in communication, the same bureaucratic black holes, and the same administrative friction when trying to cross-reference entitlements between devolved local structures and the central DWP database. Vulnerable carers and elderly citizens transitioning to the state pension are being left without income, simply because fragmented public services cannot talk to one another. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that the most vulnerable in our care are protected with greater success, UK-wide?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree with the hon. Member, and it is important to remember that on many occasions we are talking about our most vulnerable constituents. No doubt there is an onus on us as MPs, and indeed on the Government in Westminster, but Administrations in other parts of the UK also have a responsibility to ensure that they are working as constructively as possible.

I understand that the Department has recently recruited more complaints handlers, which I hope will go some way to improving things. I have a case that we raised in March, and we were told this week that it has not yet been assigned to anyone. I am deeply concerned about the state of the DWP, and by extension the welfare of the vulnerable constituents who the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to.

There are two key issues with the carer support payment that the DWP needs to help address. First, DWP staff need to be trained in what that payment is, how it works, and why keeping the underlying entitlement to it is important. That includes early stage call handlers, in addition to the specialist teams to whom difficult cases are allocated. I hope that the Minister, and the Minister for Social Security and Disability, are fully across this, but let me put on the record that the carer support payment is the benefit that replaced carer’s allowance in Scotland—we know there have been major issues with carer’s allowance in other parts of the UK.

Like carer’s allowance, earnings over a certain level remove someone’s eligibility to the payments. Carer support payment can also be awarded as an underlying entitlement that acts as a gateway for additional support. That should be a familiar concept. We see it with the DWP carer’s allowance, but also with other support such as child benefit. Parents are encouraged to apply for child benefit even if they are not eligible for the payment, because it is a gateway to the non-working parent getting national insurance credits.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine how frustrating it is when DWP case handlers give advice, as they have done to us, that the issue with deductions would be resolved by asking Social Security Scotland to remove the underlying entitlement. It fails to demonstrate any understanding of how many benefits work, and frankly demonstrates a willingness to let people be worse off because the DWP’s own rules are complicated to apply.

Secondly, DWP systems need to be set up to process correctly the information being provided to them by Social Security Scotland. I will not claim that Social Security Scotland is perfect by any stretch, and it is not within the purview of this place, but I would like to see more joined-up working from all sides. However, I have been assured, as much as I can be, by Social Security Scotland that its computer system is communicating properly with the DWP, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

However, from the DWP side I have been varyingly told that its system shows a claimant in receipt of a payment of carer support payment, despite them never having received it, and that it is DWP policy to deduct carer support payment as standard unless explicitly told otherwise by Social Security Scotland. Worryingly, while acknowledging an issue in March, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us in writing that wrongful deductions

“may cause confusion to customers and that they are exploring ways to make the process clearer”.

My view is that yes, DWP mistakes can be confusing, especially given the communication issues that I have already outlined; but that statement misses the point by stating the problem is the claimant’s understanding. We need a system that does not make these systemic errors in the first place, and I would argue that that is very squarely for the Department, not claimants, to sort out.

Just finally last week, the specialist DWP complaints team has either worked out, or come clean with us and owned up to, the systemic error impacting many Scottish carers. It wants to find a fix, but it does not have a timescale in which that will be achieved. Until then, it will be up to a claimant to realise that there is a problem and ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. Let me repeat that: the DWP wants the claimant to ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. We all know that unpaid carers are among the most overstretched groups in our society, yet the DWP is telling them to take on the burden of correcting its failures every single month. Carers Week is next week, and I do not think that that is the message that we want to be sending from this place, or indeed from the DWP.

That may all sound a bit dry and complicated, but benefit applications, overlapping payments and underlying entitlements have a real human impact on the lives of our constituents. Having their universal credit payment reduced to nil when they have food to buy and bills to pay is very difficult. There is no buffer to help them out while they battle with the DWP to find out why. I have seen constituents relying on credit cards for basics, or going without, to the detriment of their own health. The stress and distress that this situation causes are immense. The DWP’s computer error is the reason one constituent has been suicidal, and it is causing extreme anxiety to another. They are not alone, and fundamentally this is not their fault.

I will make a final addition to my remarks before I come to a conclusion. I had mainly prepared for this debate when we received an update this morning on one of the cases. My constituent had received a letter saying that he would be receiving a back payment of the best part of £3,000. He was confused—we were confused. My office had spelled out as clearly as it could to the DWP that he just needed his universal credit paid back for the period of December 2025 to February 2026, in which carer support payment had been incorrectly deducted. Being given a confusing payment of too much money can be just as distressing as receiving too little. I cannot stress enough the fear of relying on the DWP, spending the money and then being told that it has to be repaid—I am sure that we all, as constituency MPs, recognise that.

As it turns out, the DWP had got it wrong again. Despite everything it had been told, despite the months of investigating the claim, it thought that my constituent had never received carer support payment, which he had until December, and had repaid him for the whole period of the deduction. Now a further investigation has to be carried out, and then my constituent will have to pay back more than two thirds of what he has just been paid, so he needs to keep that money until then. I am sorry, but I find that unacceptable. What on earth is going on?

My constituents spotted the problem, came to my office and after months of back and forth we have understood it, but there are more than 30,000 carers across Scotland who have this underlying entitlement and could be missing out on universal credit as a result. It has been a battle to get to where we are today, and I would not be surprised if many carers in Scotland gave up their underlying entitlement to this payment if they were told by the DWP that that was the best thing to do—but there are consequences to that decision. I therefore hope the Minister can use his time to set out what the Department is doing to ensure that its staff properly know about and understand Scottish benefits.

What engagement is the Minister’s Department having with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can get working together? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, how will the Department ensure that that happens on a UK-wide basis? What is the current understanding of the underlying error? What steps are being taken to fix it? What will the timescale be for that? Crucially, what steps are being taken to identify carers who are being underpaid or wrongly advised to drop their entitlement, and to offer proper support while those errors are rectified?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend tempts me. I agree that it is not alone in being a national scandal up in Scotland—if, indeed, that is what it is. For the purposes of seeking to maintain a constructive relationship with my counterparts in Scotland, I may swerve the broader steer of that question. The focus should always be on ensuring that both systems work for those who use them, and that people get a clear, reliable and efficient service, even if they receive support from both DWP and Social Security Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always constructive and helpful, and we look forward to his contribution and his answers, which I am sure will help the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. I know the debate is about Scotland, but as I have mentioned, we are having similar problems in Northern Ireland. If we highlight our problems to the Minister, will he take them on as well?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly will. As I said earlier, I am the Minister responsible for devolution, and I have regular conversations with Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities. I am very happy to pick up any specifics, where there are kinks that need to be ironed out. I am happy to do that for any Member.

By March this year, DWP had completed its role in the transfer to Social Security Scotland of customers in receipt of four major devolved benefits. That involved around 730,000 benefit awards for personal independence payment, disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and attendance allowance customers. This was a hugely important undertaking, not only because of the number of people affected, but because of how vital that support so often is to people. It required close operational co-ordination, robust data sharing, careful communication with customers, and a shared commitment to ensuring continuity of support. I hear what the hon. Member for North East Fife says about her constituents’ experience of that transfer. Her point is well made, but crucially, in broad terms, it did deliver for people in Scotland; payments continued without interruption at point of transfer, and people were supported and kept informed throughout. That was a significant achievement by both organisations, and a clear demonstration of what effective, co-operative working can deliver.

Throughout that complex process, it was very important that Scottish customers should know how to access information, and who to contact about devolved benefits. DWP operational staff also needed to know how to signpost and support customers correctly—I will take away the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening training, because if that has not been delivered to full effect, we need to make sure that that happens going forward. To achieve this, DWP and Social Security Scotland worked together on customer communications, ensuring the messaging was clear and consistent wherever possible, with detailed information on the changes to devolved benefits published on both gov.uk and gov.scot. DWP operational guidance has been updated to ensure that DWP colleagues are aware of those changes, and of where procedures have been updated. Colleagues received specific guidance on handling customer queries about Social Security Scotland’s benefits and payments. Both organisations agreed that each would signpost to the other where appropriate, but should avoid providing guidance or advice on each other’s benefits. The hon. Lady also made a point about the level within the organisation that that training had been cascaded to. I will check and confirm that for her, to make sure it has rippled through to all levels.

While both DWP and the Scottish Government’s devolution programmes closed in March this year, nobody should take that as an indication that we do not continue to work together extremely closely. As I have already said, it is vital that co-operative relations continue. That is why DWP has created the Social Security Scotland liaison unit, a new function to support the ongoing relationship with Social Security Scotland. That liaison unit will ensure that future changes to devolved and reserved benefits are co-ordinated, and will support DWP business areas with any Social Security Scotland-facing matters. Alongside the work of that unit, DWP, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland continue to join up at many levels. Senior leaders agreed to establish a joint forum for Social Security Scotland and DWP operations to exchange feedback, support continuous improvement and jointly resolve issues. The joint operational working group provides an opportunity to discuss the customer experience and the journey our shared customers are navigating to receive the financial support they are entitled to.

Getting Britain Working Again

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I will outline the changes to the system that we are making. At the heart of it, we have to change the question that the system asks in order to have a system that is suited better to the conditions of today. We should ask people not just what benefit they are entitled to, but how we can help them change their lives, and we have begun that task.

The change to universal credit that came into force last month narrowed the gap between the health element and the standard element. Crucially, it is matched by an increase in employment support. Another change is the provision of £3.8 billion to help people into work over the next few years, ensuring personalised help to maximise people’s chances of moving into a good, secure job. We have to change the old Tory habit of people being signed off and written off, and instead move to a system that more actively helps people into work. Nowhere is that more true than among the young, because the longer young people are left on benefits or out of work, the harder it is to come off and the worse the consequences are. The issue with the system is not just about monthly income; it is about the story of people’s lives and how we change it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for enabling me to ask a question, and for the positivity in his comments so far. Like him, I am incredibly worried about whether young people are getting job opportunities, and many in my constituency unfortunately have not been. May I ask a question about apprenticeships? We need to get people into the building and construction sector, for instance, where there are opportunities because house building is continuing to grow, as is the Government’s commitment. Will he outline some of the good things that have been done for young people in relation to apprenticeships?

[Pat McFadden]

Apprenticeships are really valuable and important. I visited construction apprentices with the Prime Minister just a couple of days ago, so I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.

The issue of youth employment is really important to us because of the long-term consequences of young people staying on benefits. Let me illustrate this for the House. A young person under the age of 25 who is on the health element of universal credit is now less likely to get a job than someone over 55 on the same benefit. A 20-year-old on incapacity benefit is more likely to turn 30 and still be claiming it than to have held a steady job for a year. Perhaps worst of all, a young unemployed person is over 70% more likely than their peers to die prematurely. Changing those stories has to be at the heart of what we are doing.

There are practical ways of doing that. We know that many disabled people—young and old—and people with health conditions want to work, but have been held back by the fear of losing their benefits if things do not work out, so just last month we changed the law to bring in the right to try. Keeping people locked on benefits because they lack the confidence to work is in no one’s interests—not the individuals’ and not the state’s. The change means that entering employment will not automatically trigger a benefit reassessment. This is practical welfare reform and this is what getting Britain working looks like.

We also know that disabled people and people with health conditions need localised support to get back into work. There is no greater fan than me of the wonderful work that our elected local mayors are doing, so we are putting £1 billion of funding into local areas to help 300,000 people into employment over the next few years. That is what practical welfare reform looks like.

Today, the Department has published new figures on fraud and error. They show continued progress and a fall since the post-pandemic period, but this is an ongoing effort. There is always more to do because there are unscrupulous individuals who will try to game the system, but whether it is £5,000 or £5 million from an undisclosed source—possibly someone located abroad—people are expected to declare it. There cannot be one rule for some and another rule for everyone else.

In the coming weeks, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will set out our plans to deliver our manifesto commitment to tackle the Access to Work backlog. This important scheme provides grants to thousands of disabled people to help them get into and stay in work, through things like specialist equipment, assistive technology and adaptations. Members from across the House have raised with me the issue of backlogs and waiting times that grew under the Conservative Government. Well, under this Government, we are changing that to reduce the backlog and to help more disabled people into work. This is practical welfare reform and this is what getting Britain working looks like.

We are restoring fairness in the system too. We are providing better value for money in the Motability scheme, with a target for half those cars to be made in Britain by 2035, so that this important scheme supports the British car industry too. We are stopping those who have not contributed from getting a British pension on the cheap. The work of reform will continue this year when, in the coming weeks, we receive interim reports from both the Milburn and Timms reviews, before they conclude later in the year. We will bring forward further proposals for reform, with work and opportunity at their heart, when those reviews have reported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

I welcome the energy independence Bill. Let us see what is in the clauses when it is published, but the Secretary of State wants to make this country independent of outside forces. This is the first time a Government have invested so heavily in renewables. All this will get Britain working.

It is outrageous that oil companies have made massive profits and traders have bet on the outcome of war in Iran as petrol prices go up. Someone somewhere is making money, and it is not my constituents. They may not even know who is making the money, yet they blame us.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the right hon. Lady for her contribution. It is really important that we look upon renewables as an option, whether we like it or not—that is the way I see it. The Government are pushing their renewables policy for England and Wales, but does she believe that we should be doing this collectively? I think that Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should be working together on a policy that can take us forward and meet the targets, which are very important not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren.

[Valerie Vaz]

We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is very important that we all work together. When it comes to climate change policies, we cannot specify a particular area; they are for our whole country, and our whole planet.

Those of us who were around at the time of Brexit—and I am pleased to see an EU Bill in the King’s Speech—will remember that we were allowed to see the impact assessments only if we left our phones behind and went across the road with just a pencil and paper. There we saw the impact assessments for each sector, and how leaving the EU affected every single one; we knew how important it was. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that post-Brexit red tape and costs are driving smaller companies out of European markets. In a survey of 645 businesses, 30% indicated that they might reduce or cease trading in the EU without eased regulations. Many small businesses—64%—reported issues with customs documentation, 21% reported issues with physical inspections and 17% reported issues with product marking. To get Britain working, we need a closer relationship with our nearest market. If these small businesses close, working people and all of us lose out.

I believe in the dignity of work. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned that there is no welfare Bill in the Gracious Speech, but measures have already been taken to increase the national minimum wage, rights at work and safety at work. We will get Britain working with the new work coaches and the right to try.

I do not know whether Members have seen the television programme “The Pitt”, but in season two, a construction worker has to be taken to A&E and cannot afford his medical care, which is about $20,000. Watching that, we all know how lucky and blessed we are that we have our NHS, free at the point of need. We give people dignity when they fall ill. We take it for granted that our doctors and nurses are trained to the highest level. The NHS modernisation Bill will bring back the Department of Health and Social Care as one Department with accountability to the Secretary of State. There will not be the extra cost of NHS England; instead, there will be more money for the frontline.

I have found some money down the back of the sofa, so I hope the Chancellor is listening. Fifty million pounds has been allocated for a free school in my constituency that, on the evidence, is not needed. The National Audit Office has reported falling rolls in primary schools, and that fall in numbers will feed into secondary schools. I was told that the decision about the school was made in 2017. There was a Walsall priority education investment area programme, and the Windsor Academy Trust just so happened to have a member on the programme’s board. Surprise, surprise—it got the contract for the free school. It is like insider trading with public money. A review was undertaken, but Ministers are pressing ahead with the decision. I am not sure why, when schools like Joseph Leckie, Blue Coat academy and All Saints academy require support for their buildings, as do many other schools. Despite what the evidence shows, there will be building on Reedswood Park, which is not what local people want. It is the same with the Walsall Leather Museum, a beloved local cultural and heritage icon; the deal with the then Conservative-controlled council was a novel and contentious transaction, made against the wishes of visitors, constituents and Government policy on promoting arts and culture. The museum must be retained in its current position.

I believe in the dignity of education, which is why I welcome the Bill to raise education standards for all. We already have Best Start hubs in train—we know what a difference Sure Start made—and breakfast clubs. Anyone who has visited breakfast clubs knows that there is a glorious cacophony of excited children who have had a good meal. There are also quiet places, and I am pleased that some are taking part in the year of reading. Children are set up for the day. We cannot measure the results of a good education tomorrow; we have to see the benefits over a lifetime. I believe in the dignity of opportunity, and that is what this Government are giving people. We give people the tools to find and exploit their talents. Many do not know what their talents are when they start off in life, and they want to discover them over the years. That is how we get Britain working.

We live in a society where, if we see something we want, we can buy it, and it is with us the next day, but Governments do not operate in that way. I want to end with a story about three workers constructing a road. When they were asked what they were doing, the first one said he was breaking stones; the second one said that he was constructing a road; and the third one said that he was constructing a road that would take children to their school, or the sick to hospital. We have to show people the significance of the actions that the Government are undertaking, so that they are like the third worker. Equality, opportunity, skills, justice and tolerance take time, patience and perseverance. We need to explain to people that our Government are standing up against vested interests and for all our citizens, and that is why I support the measures in our sovereign’s Gracious Speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of compensating 1950s-born women impacted by the maladministration of state pension age changes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of providing compensation to women born in the 1950s affected by changes to the state pension age.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

22. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of implementing the recommendations in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”, published on 21 March 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.

[Jim Shannon]

I ask this question on behalf of the 6,000 WASPI women in Strangford. Given that the Department’s own 2007 evaluation raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, how can the Minister justify the decision that no direct financial loss occurred when thousands of women were deprived of the 28-month notice period required to adjust their life savings and retirement plans? In the light of the Scottish Parliament’s decision to again press this issue in February, will he please do the right thing, put actions before apologies, and deliver help and support? I say that respectfully, but I do want a good answer.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. What is sitting behind the ombudsman’s judgment saying that is that the issue facing the ombudsman was not either the original decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age or the decision to accelerate the increase by the coalition Government in 2011. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at the question of how that increase in the state pension age was communicated, and I think it is really important to clarify that distinction with our constituents. It is the latter—the communication of the state pension age—that we have discussed in this House on numerous occasions.

The hon. Member specifically raises the 2007 evidence, which showed that a minority of people read and remembered such letters. However, it showed something else quite important, which was that those with good knowledge of their state pension entitlement were most likely to read the letters. It was therefore not a good metric for assuming that the majority of those who were sent letters would have learned something from that and changed what they knew.

Pension Schemes Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, but proposes further amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

I thank the rather shrinking number of peers and hon. Members who have been engaged in the scrutiny of the Bill. It has clearly come a long way since I closed the Second Reading debate. I am glad, in particular, to see that some progress has been made in recent days with the other place’s agreement to this House’s amendments on the approach to defined contribution schemes achieving scale and on the transparency of public sector pension liabilities. That leaves one issue remaining: the Lords amendments on asset allocation. This House has already considered that question twice, and on both occasions it has rejected the Lords’ position by majorities of over 100. At each stage the Government have reiterated the need for the core policy intent to be delivered, while responding with changes to primary legislation that directly address specific issues raised.

I hope the House will bear with me while I explain what we are now proposing, and why I believe it is time for these exchanges to conclude. Let me deal first with the amendments to which we have previously agreed. The reserve power is capped at the Mansion House accord targets: no more than 10% in qualifying assets, and no more than 5% in UK-specific assets. It explicitly applies only to main default funds. Regulations cannot concentrate the requirement in any single asset class. The power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

According to the Order Paper,

“The Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have approved Legislative Consent Resolutions”.

Some of my colleagues in the Assembly back home have expressed some of the concerns that the Lords have expressed. I am conscious of where we are going and where we will end up. Can the Minister please give me some indication of the content of the discussions that took place with the Northern Ireland Assembly? Members of the Legislative Assembly tell me they expressed concern. I am trying to understand how a consent motion could be conveyed and agreed.

Alternative Measures to GDP

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of use of alternative measures to GDP within Government.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and an honour to introduce this debate on what I believe is a very important subject: alternative measures to GDP. Gross domestic product is still the predominant metric that we use to measure whether Governments are succeeding. I want to suggest today that it is not just an imperfect measure but the wrong one. Before we can agree on a better measure, it might first be helpful to ask what we are measuring for. That means asking a more fundamental question: “What is Government actually for?”

My thoughts on that are that Governments exist to do five things in particular that individuals, families and markets are not able to realistically do on their own. First, to keep people safe, from crime, from conflict and from harm. Secondly, to provide common rules and fairness, the laws, rights and frameworks that stop power being abused. Thirdly, to provide public goods: clean air, clean water, flood protection and infrastructure, the things that markets cannot easily deliver because they are not profitable. Fourthly, to support stability and reduce risk through things such as healthcare and social security, the safety net that helps people to cope with illness, unemployment and old age. Fifthly, and finally, to represent our collective choices about the future, things such as how we balance growth with nature, freedom with fairness, and short-term need with long-term resilience.

To sum up, Governments exist to do together what we cannot do alone. In a democracy, they must do so accountably, so we need an appropriate way of measuring their success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for a very commendable speech in setting out what we are trying to achieve. She rightly highlights that, while GDP measures the monetary value of goods and services, it fails to capture critical aspects of life, such as environmental sustainability, income distribution and health. However, it is also a well-established measurement. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that we do not see a new measure that allows failures to be hidden by new definitions?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with, and will elaborate on, his points about what GDP fails to measure and how it must be complemented by other metrics.

So the crucial question is: if those five things are indeed what Governments are for, how well—or not—does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding?

Pension Schemes Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.

This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.

A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.

First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.

Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.

Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.

Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a pensioner. The pensioners who come to me are a wee tad unsure about what is on offer for them. They are perhaps confused, because they get advice from people here to move in one direction, and then somebody else will give them advice to move in another direction. What can the Minister and the Government do to provide the correct support and advice to people who are hesitant or unsure about what to do with their pension pots at a time when it is really important? We have seen many scams, and we hear about much happening in relation to this issue. I want to ensure that pensioners in particular have the opportunity to get the advice that they need very much.

[Torsten Bell]

As always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working, it is important to keep the simple advice at the front of their mind that people should be saving towards their pension. In almost all circumstances, saving is the right thing to do, and we have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. We should ensure that that message is heard loud and clear, and I am sure that he makes that clear to his constituents.

On the harder question of how those approaching retirement decide to use their pot, it is often right to take advice, and obviously the Money and Pensions Service exists to provide that. Others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. The hon. Gentleman is right; we are leaving too much pressure on individuals to manage those decisions alone. That is why the default pensions parts of the Bill, which I think have cross-party support, are important in simplifying that journey for people. People can do what they want, but they will not end up with a bad outcome just because they are faced with a confusing situation in front of them. The onus will be on trustees and providers of pensions to navigate that for those individuals.

Let me come back to small pots. I will make one specific point, which was raised in the other place, regarding worries about those who are taking career breaks, particularly for maternity leave, and have a dormant pot for a period of time. I want to reassure the House that paid maternity leave obviously sees contributions into pension pots continue, rather than those pots becoming dormant, and there is the most important wider safeguard, which is the ability for anyone to opt out of their pot being consolidated. That safeguard covers exactly this kind of eventuality, even though it would be only a very small number of cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I have just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He is happy to carry on with the status quo; we are not.

We are going to set this out in two ways. First, we will specify on the face of the Bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% in the UK—exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral between asset classes, spelling out that a future Government who took a different view from this one could not use the power to direct investments into hand-picked asset classes.

The existing safeguards in the Bill also remain: the time limit, the reporting requirements, the affirmative procedure, and—most importantly—the savers’ interest test that allows pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where it is not in savers’ interests to do so.

[Jim Shannon]

I have just been sent a question from a person back home, which I will ask directly as it has been put to me. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s revised investment powers would never be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure and small business in favour of national priority projects? That is the question I have been asked, and I need to ask it of the Minister.

[Torsten Bell]

If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.

It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.

I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.

Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.

Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.

Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.

I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.

Access to Work Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Member is right to focus on retention, which is an equally important part of the scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. He is right to underline the issues for people who are disabled and want to get into work. Many employers wish to ensure that those people have the opportunity, but they are unable to expedite the system, through no fault of theirs. They want to employ people, but they cannot because the Government are falling short. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be a better arrangement and better co-operation in relation to not just those who want to work, but those who want to give them jobs?

[David Chadwick]

Yes. The hon. Member is right to mention how everyone can benefit from people getting back into work—both employers and disabled people looking for work can benefit—but the system is not enabling that to happen. Self-employed individuals, in particular, are losing their businesses, and employers—in particular smaller employers—are being left with costs and uncertainty. A scheme designed to support work is, in its current state, preventing it.

Alongside the delays, there are growing concerns about how the scheme operates in practice. My constituents report being forced to reapply from scratch at renewal, even when nothing has changed. We know that we have the technology to deal with that problem. They face long reconsideration processes, struggle to contact caseworkers and in some instances cannot even access the system properly, because of their needs. This does not sound like a system working with people; it feels like one that they are having to fight to get through.

There are also serious concerns about funding decisions. I have been made aware of cases in which support has been cut significantly, not because needs have changed, but because funding is benchmarked against generic regional job market rates, which will punish people living longer, particularly in Wales, where we have lower than average salaries. That misunderstands the entire purpose of the scheme.

We are seeing a convergence of problems: delays getting into the system, barriers to navigating it and reductions in support once people are in it. The result is clear: people are being kept out of work because the Government’s system is not working for them. That creates a fundamental contradiction: the Government want more disabled people in work, and disabled people have plenty to offer, but encouragement without support does not represent opportunity.

When Access to Work fails, people fall out of employment, businesses miss out on talent, and more people are pushed into economic inactivity. At a time when we must indeed focus on growth, we should be strengthening the system, not allowing it to fall behind. We need urgent steps to tackle the backlog. We need a system that is faster, clearer and accessible. We need funding decisions that reflect the reality of specialist support.

Ultimately, this is about whether disabled people can participate equally in working life. Many disabled people are desperate to work, but they are being let down by this scheme, which has helped so many people over the years. I urge the Minister to recognise the urgency of the issue and set out how the Government will act.

Carer’s Allowance Overpayments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank Members for joining me here in Westminster Hall. I have committed my career to securing better care and support for older people and their family carers, and I continue that work here in Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers.

This year marks a significant milestone for carers: it has been 50 years since carer’s allowance was first introduced. It was known originally as the invalid care allowance, and it was the first benefit to recognise the financial sacrifices of unpaid carers. It has made a huge difference, providing vital financial support to those who give 35 hours or more per week in unpaid care. I am proud that it was a Labour Government that introduced carer’s allowance back in 1976, and I am just as proud that this Labour Government and Chancellor increased the earnings threshold from £151 to £196 per week—the largest increase since the benefit was introduced—and again this month to £204 per week, as promised. The world has changed a lot since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, but some things remain the same, and Labour is still putting its money where its mouth is and standing up for carers.

Supporting carers should be a moral mission of any Government. There are 5.8 million unpaid carers in the UK, and the economic value of their contribution is some £184 billion per year, which is more than the entire NHS budget in England. However, despite the value that carers bring to our society, we often fail to value them. According to Carers UK, 1.2 million unpaid carers in the UK live in poverty, and around half of carers cut back on essentials in 2025.

There is a multitude of reasons for carer poverty. Many carers give up paid work, but many juggle paid work and unpaid care, often reducing their hours, harming their careers and impoverishing themselves. It is for all those reasons that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal is hard to stomach.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this subject forward. Does she not agree that the amount of money the Government have saved from the unpaid labour of carers is astronomical, and that unless the Department can prove that there was a deliberate overclaim, discretion must be available? These people, whose lives are dedicated to the care of others, do not need the stress of paying a penalty for a mistake and thereby being treated as a criminal.

[Anna Dixon]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of the overpayments on carers is terrible, and I am going to share the story of someone who was affected. I am sure others have heard similar shocking stories. As many as one in five unpaid carers who claim carer’s allowance and work part time were hit with overpayments. Thousands of carers have been left with huge debts and the fear of financial ruin.

Helen cares for her son Robin. He was born with a heart condition, respiratory vulnerabilities, developmental delay, mobility issues and Down’s syndrome. Helen gave up work as a teacher to support Robin and she relied on carer’s allowance. She also received some royalties for online resources that she had created as an education provider. She was paid those every six months, but the Department for Work and Pensions considered them as monthly earnings. It stopped her carer’s allowance and informed her that she had incurred overpayments going back over four years. She was charged more than £2,000 and told to pay back £50 a week. In her words,

“there was no care of how we would live or survive. It took me three very long years to repay the debt. It hung over like a great shadow, the letters, the fear of what could come. We were devastated by the department’s actions. Carers just don’t have bank balances that can stretch and withstand such pressures…you are so vulnerable…it shouldn’t be this difficult”.

As I have said, Helen’s is not an isolated case; thousands of carers are in this position, not as a result of failure on their part to report to and notify the DWP, but owing to a failure of Government. This scandal is a stain on the record of the British state.

I therefore commend this Labour Government for asking Liz Sayce to conduct an independent review of carer’s allowance overpayments. She made it clear that overpayments were caused

“not by widespread individual error by carers in reporting their earnings but by systemic issues preventing them from fulfilling their responsibility to report.”

I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of her recommendations and set aside £75 million to implement them.

Among other things, the review called on the Government to reform the earnings averaging processes and guidance, as well as that for allowable expenses, so that there is clarity, transparency and predictability, and it called for a thorough reassessment of cases to right the wrongs and deliver redress. It called for creative short-term solutions to address the cliff-edge crisis, while the DWP works on a longer-term plan. That is vital. If someone earns one penny over the earnings limit, they have to pay back the whole weekly carer’s allowance. The Sayce review found that although the earnings limit cliff edge does not itself cause overpayments, it dramatically increases their scale and impact, negatively affecting people’s health, finances, wellbeing and opportunities to work. Will the Minister update us on progress on the introduction of a taper system?

Liz Sayce recommended a whole range of other reforms, from upgrading computer systems to using more empathetic language, improving the join-up between types of benefits and simplifying the system. I thank her and her team for completing this crucial task. I urge the Minister to implement the recommendations with urgency and to set out the timeline for doing so.

Turning to those affected, I welcome yesterday’s announcement that the Government have launched an audit of more than 200,000 carer’s allowance cases affected by unclear Government guidance that was in place between 2015 and 2025. The cases will be reviewed, and debts potentially reduced, cancelled or refunded for some 25,000 unpaid carers. That is excellent news and I am sure the Minister will say more. However, I believe that there are several categories of people who have been adversely affected whose cases remain outstanding. The DWP appears to be accepting responsibility only for those affected by the unlawful guidance on average earnings and not for the lack of clear guidance on expenses deductions.

Will the Minister ensure, as the audit begins, that the DWP fully addresses all aspects of maladministration? First, there should be consideration of cases in which the DWP held information regarding expenses but did not act on it or make corrections for many years. Secondly, I urge him to ensure that cases in which data has been “lost” by the DWP are dealt with as Liz Sayce recommended, and treated as cases of official error unless the DWP can prove otherwise. Thirdly, in the cases of those affected by the failure to adjust universal credit correctly, Sayce recommended that the DWP should pay UC arrears. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed whether the audit will include reviews for those missing groups.