Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Josh Babarinde

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Josh Babarinde]

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

Temporary Accommodation: Out of Area Placements

Debate between Jim Shannon and Josh Babarinde

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Babarinde]

I am grateful for the opportunity to spotlight the challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness who are placed by their local authorities into temporary accommodation outside their local authority areas.

In many cases, out of area placements are both necessary and an appropriate means to safeguard vulnerable individuals. A clear example is survivors of domestic abuse, who may be forced to relocate to ensure their own safety. But too often, for placing authorities, “out of area” becomes shorthand for “out of sight and out of mind”. A scandal has unfolded across our country, in which homeless people are dumped from one place to another without the proper assistance that they need to address the causes of their homelessness, or other support that could help to get them back on their feet.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am absolutely incredulous that any authority should send a family way out of their area. I was shocked when I read about an example of this issue in my constituency, with a family whose child attended a special school being offered accommodation in County Tyrone, which is three hours away from where they live and from where their child goes to school. There is absolutely no way that that family could cope with that. The disruption to their children’s routine would have been severely detrimental. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that special consideration must be given for family units, and particularly to those with children who have particular educational needs?

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the scandal that families face in his own constituency, but what is even more scandalous is that that is not the exception; it is happening in too many places. Due consideration is not given for families with children with special educational needs. That consideration does not go far enough, and too many councils are not just failing when it comes to making those kinds of assessments but failing to uphold their wider duties of care, communications standards and accountability in following those people and their families wherever they are placed.

In Eastbourne, this issue particularly grew during the pandemic following the introduction of the last Government’s “Everyone In” directive, under which people who were experiencing homelessness were rapidly—and rightly—placed into temporary accommodation, including hotels and bed and breakfasts, in order to protect their health and public health more widely. Although that approach was formally stepped down by the Government after the first lockdown, many local authorities have continued to use that model.

While “Everyone In” was extremely well intentioned, it has since become an embedded, informal and unregulated practice that contributes to the sustained use of out of area temporary accommodation without the necessary support in place. Over the last couple of years, out of area placements in Eastbourne have increased fourfold, to the 209 that Eastbourne hosts today. As I have said in this very room before, out of area placements now account for 46% of all temporary accommodation placements in Eastbourne, with the majority being from Brighton and Hove city council. There are currently 178 placements by Brighton and Hove city council in Eastbourne, and 31 from other neighbouring districts, such as Hastings, Worthing and Rother, and a small number from London.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), this is not just a local issue but a national one. At the end of June 2025, 42,080 households were living in temporary accommodation outside their home local authority. That represents an increase of more than 10% since 2021. London accounts for a significant proportion of such placements, reflecting the acute pressures in the capital. I recognise the scale of the challenge there, but that pattern has clear consequences for other towns and cities across the country, which are increasingly expected to meet these needs without the resources, co-ordination or accountability that should accompany that expectation.

After years of sustained pressure and negotiation by Eastbourne borough council, our town has finally secured somewhat more consistent notifications from placing authorities when individuals are moved into the borough. Although that progress is welcome, serious information gaps remain. Too often, notifications are incomplete, with receiving authorities not provided with information on key risk factors such as histories of domestic abuse or other serious vulnerabilities. That leaves frontline services without the information that they need to keep those individuals, staff and the wider community safe. If a duty of care is to mean anything, it must include the timely sharing of appropriate and proportionate case details across local authority boundaries to ensure that safeguarding responsibilities can be properly discharged.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Josh Babarinde

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member will be aware that the Bill creates a criminal offence that would punish those who would coerce a relative in such a way. [Hon. Members: “Self-coerce.”] There are folks who talk about the concept of self-coercion, but others would frame such a decision as a choice. Self-coercion is a choice.

My constituent said,

“This could have been avoided with an assisted dying law. My partner was from a jurisdiction where such a law exists. A relative used that law. They were able to gather their family, say a proper goodbye and die in peace and with dignity before losing all physical and mental capacity.”

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Josh Babarinde]

I will not, to give others the chance to speak after me.

My constituent went on to say,

“The procedure to enable this was protracted and had several safeguards which would prevent much of the concerns we hear about by those opposed. I urge you to support this bill”—

the Bill, and not just the principle. I will do so because the status quo is completely unacceptable and must be reformed.

Domestic Abuse Offences

Debate between Jim Shannon and Josh Babarinde

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I first commend the hon. Gentleman for his courage in telling his personal story. We are all moved by it—I know I am—and I thank him for that. He has shown himself to be a determined, capable Member of Parliament, and I wish him well.

Across Northern Ireland, we witness people being arrested for first-time domestic offences. Ultimately, the charges are not prosecuted in court and the cases are dropped. Fast forward and people are re-arrested for domestic charges that are in fact worse, showing a pattern of escalating violence. Does he agree that arrests for domestic abuse must be fully investigated and, if proven, prosecuted to the full extent of the law to protect people from violence and instil confidence in the judicial system?

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank my friend the hon. Member for his kind words, and I completely agree that all abusers, domestic or not, must face the full force of the law. It is critical that happens for victims and survivors to have confidence in the police and our wider criminal justice system, and that is lacking for many victims and survivors. We see that in some of the consequences of the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—early release scheme that the Government had to implement in the light of the poor state that the last Government left our prisons in.