Fuel Duty

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I come here today with a mission. Unfortunately, for the past two years I have not followed closely enough the Labour party’s position on what the Government want to deliver. I have lost track of whether we are talking about pillars, aims, priorities, staging points, milestones or foundations, but at the start of the year the latest reinvention was a mission focused on the cost of living.

That was a slight change from when the Government first took office, because their main aim and their No. 1 priority at that point was to go for growth. Alas, as we have seen, that is not happening—the last figures say growth is 0%. What is more, it was evident that all the Government policies that were being put in place were actually anti-growth, as we are starting to see.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In a pithy sentence, will the hon. Gentleman describe the mission of the Conservative party?

[Dr Evans]

To win the next election, because then we can deliver the change that we are talking about.

On reducing the cost of living—the Government’s No. 1 aim for January—it seems bizarre that the measures that are being put in place have done nothing to support that. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five-point plan to deal with what is going on. He said energy bills would be capped, but we already knew that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. He said the fuel duty cap would be extended until September, but we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it is set to rise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My firm view is that the Government should be supporting all of those individuals to drive economic growth across the country. By removing the two-child cap, the Government are saying to those families who have worked out what their household spending power will be over a long period of time, “If you want to have more than two children, the Government will step in and pay for you.” That negatively impacts hard-working families that have made those hard fiscal decisions throughout. The reality is that increasing the level of welfare spending by taxing businesses such as those across my constituency—those involved in the haulage industry and the logistics sector that will now see a hike in the price of fuel—negatively impacts those who are driving economic growth, and therefore impacts everybody.

[Tom Hayes]

I think the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) was making is that, contrary to what the hon. Member said, the majority of parents of children who are disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap are working. They are grafters; they are the hon. Member’s constituents, who are often working multiple jobs just to make ends meet in the difficult cost of living crisis that we inherited. Surely he is not calling the parents who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, including his constituents, workshy.

[Robbie Moore]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not turned up to this debate—a debate on an incredibly important issue that is impacting all of our constituents, including his—in good enough time to make a speech on the fuel duty increase, but wants to turn the debate back to a point that I answered in my response to the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). That point still stands. If the Government increase taxes on the hard-working businesses and individuals across the country who want to drive economic growth in order to benefit only a very few people, they are not providing opportunity for many young people and hard-working families across all our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to the additional challenges in rural areas, but he makes a clear and concise point: if people have to travel further for a job opportunity, they are going to be taxed more by this Labour Government. That is on top of the Labour Government removing the rural services delivery grant that was providing additional support to many local authorities operating in rural communities. We clearly have a Government who are not interested in supporting our rural communities. Of course, this fuel duty hike comes on top of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and business rates. It will impact our care workers, our district nurses and our hospice sector, all of which are also impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions.

At a local level across the Bradford district, we face an additional tax burden: the clean air zone, which was rolled out several years ago. A taxi driver with a non-compliant vehicle who wants to travel into Bradford—an area that we all want to see grow and thrive economically—faces a daily charge of £7 to do so. A white van driver is charged £9 daily to go into Bradford, and someone operating a bus or a heavy goods vehicle is charged £50 a day to do so, as a result of the choices that Labour-run Bradford council has made.

Labour-run Bradford council has received £20 million from collecting this additional tax from our hard-working businesses over the period that the clean air zone has been in force across Bradford. It is something that I am firmly opposed to. Bradford council will say that it is going to spend this money wisely across the district, but based on a freedom of information request that I submitted to Bradford council, I can contradict that narrative. As of 2023, just £4.1 million of all highways spending was spent within the Keighley and Ilkley constituency over a six-year period. To put that in context, the spending in Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South was £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million respectively. That illustrates that there is no fairness in how Bradford council spends the money it is collecting from my hard-working constituents across Keighley and Ilkley.

[Tom Hayes]

Which of the five recent Conservative Prime Ministers gave Bradford council the right to introduce a clean air zone?

[Robbie Moore]

The right to roll out a clean air zone was given to local authorities, enabling them to make that decision, but some local authorities have refused to do so. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, decided not to roll out a clean air zone—that is an example of a Labour administration at a local level making the right decision on this issue. Labour-run Bradford council, however, decided to impose an additional tax on hard-working motorists across the Bradford district. As a result, places in my constituency such as East Morton face increased traffic congestion, road usage and speeding in the areas outside the clean air zone, where motorists try to take different roads to avoid any additional charge.

Rural communities will also be hard hit, as has been rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). Many of those businesses are in our farming community, which has already been hit by additional cash-flow implications. One point that has not been raised in this debate so far is the increase in red diesel prices, which have spiked by 60% in the last month alone, as supplies remain tight. From the research I have done, red diesel has increased up to an average of 109p a litre in March, up from 67p a litre in February. Farming businesses are reporting being quoted a variety of prices in the past month, ranging from 100p a litre to 135p a litre. That is a significant increase from the 67p a litre we saw just last month.

Several farmers are rightly querying why red diesel prices appear to have increased much more rapidly than road diesel and petrol prices. What meetings is the Minister having with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers specifically on red diesel, which is having an impact right now on the cash flow of many of our hard-working farmers? That is in addition to delinked payments dramatically dropping, the chop and change over the sustainable farming incentive, and the uncertainty that this Government are creating for many of those working within our farming community, and that is on top of fertiliser prices going up.

The Prime Minister said earlier this week that he will always support working people, but what does that say to those hard-working people across the country and across Keighley and Ilkley, such as Lesley O’Brien, who I mentioned earlier? Businesses and employers face bigger and bigger hurdles the longer this Labour Government are in power. Three consecutive rises in fuel duty is an insult to hard-working people across this country. The Prime Minister and this Government need to get a grip, back our hard-working businesses and show some empathy to those concerns consistently being raised by Opposition Members. It is disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, that we have not heard one Labour Back Bencher contribution in an incredibly important debate on fuel duty.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

A lot of the arguments rehearsed today relate to the fact that it is not children’s fault that they are in this situation—children deserve to be able to eat.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about it not being a child’s fault that they are growing up in poverty. I grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents, and I would also say that it is not the parents’ fault; it is society’s fault. When we say that people should be poor, and we create the structures and systems that enable that, we are all responsible. The Bill is just one way in which this Parliament can say to the country, “We will not put up with poverty for anyone ever again—it is not people’s fault.” Does she agree?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely true. I accept the rebuke, which is completely reasonable. It is not the parents’ fault—I should have been far clearer about that. I tend to think that poverty and a lack of privilege are caused by a lack of choices. Poverty means that people cannot make mistakes, while privilege means that they can. I can make mistakes because I have enough of a financial cushion and family support. For people who live in poverty, without family support or with poor mental health, one mistake can mean very quickly spiralling into an un-rescuable situation. That is how I think about privilege: those situations are not anybody’s fault. Just because I am lucky enough to be in a more privileged position, I am allowed to make far more mistakes than someone who is struggling on the breadline. How is that fair?

Conservative Members made comments about people working hard. A lot of the people who are on universal credit while working are in the jobs that we really need people to do. They work as carers, shopworkers and all sorts of other jobs that not one of us would say are easy. I do not know if any Members have worked as care workers. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has been a carer and knows how physically and emotionally demanding that is. Someone working in care and being paid the minimum wage is doing a physically demanding, very necessary and hard job, yet they might still be in receipt of universal credit because they earn so little. I hate the distinction made between people who work hard and people who do not, when that is based simply on salary—not the fact that lots and lots of people work hard for very little money, because the minimum wage is not a real living wage but just a minimum wage.

I think I have been clear about some of the issues raised in the debate, including the benefit cap, issues faced by disabled family members and disabled children, and the effect of these measures on child poverty, destitution and wider social outcomes. On that last point, all of us, and particularly Governments, could probably do more about the impacts of poverty and ensuring that those are also measured.

Some of the monitoring and evaluation suggestions for the child poverty strategy look at the cold, hard measure of how many children are in poverty, and at how those numbers are reduced or increased as things go on, but they look less at some of the impacts. To be fair to the hon. Member for South West Devon, how do such measures impact on school readiness? Can we see more information on whether the Government’s plans have had an impact on school readiness? Has there been an improvement in the mental health of young people as a result of these measures on child poverty?

I still think that the Government are deeply unambitious and they could do more on the benefit cap. They could also do more, for example, to match the Scottish child payment; child poverty has been reducing in Scotland because that is the key mission of our SNP Government. It is worth looking at what works anywhere in these islands, and seeing whether it could or should be replicated to ensure that we reduce poverty and protect children, and that everybody has those opportunities—no matter how much their parents earn, how many children are in the family and whether there is a disabled family member. It is important that every one of us champions every child in our constituencies, and tries to ensure that they get the best possible start in life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are certainly addressing the backlog, but if the hon. Lady would like to send me the details of those two cases, I will certainly investigate.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My constituent Stephen Sherwood has complex needs and learning difficulties. He could not understand changes to universal credit, needed guidance that never came, and so lost financial support that he badly needed. Stephen and his mum, Nicola, rightly want to know whether the DWP involves people with complex needs and learning difficulties in the design of system changes, and whether the Government will do more to ensure that such people have these changes explained to them in ways that they can understand.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. As I have said, the process of migration that we are going through is the most difficult part, as people move from employment and support allowance to universal credit. We have introduced an enhanced support journey to assist people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent who are going through this process, but I look forward to meeting him in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss lessons from this particular case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member is right to say that apprenticeship standards are highly valued. Our constituents value what an apprenticeship means. As we take the scheme forward, it is important that the public and employers have trust in the high standards that an apprenticeship offers.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Nan Roberts is 92. She was widowed this year and is facing her first Christmas without her husband of 64 years, and she is feeling utterly fobbed off by a creaking DWP system. She is waiting for her “choices letter”, despite having ingoing state pension payments dating back to 1994. The threat of asking this question has already led to some action by the DWP, but will the Secretary of State outline how I can do more to support my constituent?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman is a powerful champion for his constituents and I am sure that all hon. Members will be unhappy to hear about this case. I know that staff from the Department for Work and Pensions have already been in touch with his office, and I am happy to follow up myself.

World Menopause Day

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate marking World Menopause Day. My mum taught me well; she taught me lots of things, but in particular, normalised the menopause. It is as simple as that.

I used to run services that employed in the majority women, and having open conversations and flexible working, as we have just heard, is critical. I want to be a conduit for the women in Bournemouth East who have shared their experiences of the perimenopause and menopause. It is a privilege to speak in a debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for many reasons but especially because she visited Bournemouth a short while ago to meet me and Viv Galpin at BH Live at the Littledown centre.

Viv runs a brilliant local initiative called Beat the Pause—a programme supporting women through community-based exercise and wellbeing sessions that help to manage menopause symptoms, build confidence and strengthen social connections. I think Viv will be pleased to know that I have just had a conversation with Mariella Frostrup, the chair of Menopause Mandate, who is here today at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East, in which I spoke about Beat the Pause and Viv’s work. Beat the Pause sessions are running locally in Bournemouth, and the women who attend describe them as a lifeline—a place where they can find community, consistency and compassion. As Viv puts it:

“When you hit peri-menopause, you can feel completely lost. Your mind and body feel like they belong to someone else. You lose all reason and have no idea where to start. We trust our doctors and the NHS—but this is where the biggest amount of work needs to be done.”

That experience of confusion, frustration and being left to navigate symptoms alone is far too common. That is why the women of Bournemouth East have been clear about what needs to change. They have developed a community wish list that is both practical and achievable. First, every GP practice should have at least one member of staff trained in perimenopause and menopause care—someone responsible for upskilling colleagues and ensuring consistent advice across the surgery. Secondly, monthly menopause health talks should be held in GP surgeries, including evening sessions for working women, to improve access to accurate, trusted information. Thirdly, GPs and pharmacists should routinely promote the HRT prepayment certificate to help to ease the financial burden of ongoing prescriptions.

Fourthly, there should be greater consistency across GP practices and primary care networks, so that support does not depend on where a woman happens to live. Fifthly, GPs could partner with local wellbeing providers, such as Beat the Pause, to signpost trusted services and build a joined-up approach between medical and community support. Finally, local councils such as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council could do more to support exercise and wellbeing sessions in public spaces, using our beautiful beaches, parks and leisure centres to host accessible activities tailored to menopausal women.

Although Beat the Pause began with Sport England funding, which was to last for only a short time, it has kept going because of the commitment of people like Viv and the women who support one another. It is a shining example of how local wellbeing initiatives can complement clinical care, but also of the changes that we know need to happen in employment, combining exercise, education and peer connection into a holistic model that truly works.

I will close by giving a few further shout-outs: to Join the Meno-Make, a creative group for women who experience the menopause and perimenopause, who meet together, share stories and make art about their experiences at Re-imagine on Belle Vue Road, and to the Southface dermatology clinic, which, in addition to further events, will host the Kickass Menopause event today—it sold out twice and had to move to a larger venue at the Village Hotel. Lastly, I thank Arts University Bournemouth, which has just completed an important research project looking at creativity in the menopause, organised by Pauline Ferrick-Squibb.

In this World Menopause Day debate, I pay tribute to every woman in Bournemouth East and here in Parliament who has spoken up about her experience. Together, they are breaking down stigma, building community and showing us what menopause support looks like in practice. I want women in Bournemouth East to know that I, as their MP, have their back, and agree with them that women deserve consistent, informed and compassionate menopause care in every GP surgery, every community and every part of our town.

Welfare Spending

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Today, we have seen lots of colleagues taking interventions from each other. When I stand up to speak, particularly about poverty, I take interventions from another source—my mum. She will be sitting at home, watching the TV, and she will text me, because she knows that I am going to talk about my upbringing—about growing up in poverty, caring for her and my father, who were disabled and were forced out of work because the NHS and the social security system were nowhere to be seen when my mum and dad needed them. She is going to text me, as she always does, to say, “I’m sorry. I did my best.” She does not always realise that poverty is systemic—that it is about society and the structures we build. She internalises the shame and the guilt, and feels like she did not do enough.

Given what has been said today, I also fear that my mum will ask me a further question: “Why are some of those MPs suggesting, or saying, that I am a scrounger, as a person dependent on the welfare system?” I do not think that Members of Parliament intend to create that impression, but they should know that what they say perpetuates the shame and stigma of poverty, which is impossible to eradicate in one lifetime, and is passed on from one generation to the next. That is why I stood for Parliament. I am in this place to try to tackle child poverty, so that the people of Bournemouth East—the constituency I represent—do not have the same kind of childhood I had, living without very much, and relying on the love of a mum and dad who will sacrifice everything to get you to where they think you need to be, when they should be able to depend on a wider social security system. I ask Members speaking in today’s debate to reflect on the language they use, because the outside world is watching.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that his mum and dad did a brilliant job bringing him up; that mums and dads in all sorts of circumstances do their level best, bringing up their kids; that they are proud—as my hon. Friend’s parents no doubt are of him—of the job they have done, and the contribution that their children make; and that a person’s circumstances of birth do not define who they are going to become?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I always agree with my hon. Friend, especially when she says that I should agree with my mum. I thank her for her intervention, and I agree that nobody’s background should shape their future. We are in this place to create a better social security system, a better NHS and better public services, so that children today in all our constituencies can access the support that they need, in the form that they need, enabling them to truly thrive.

It deeply saddens me that in my constituency of Bournemouth East, children are growing up in poverty. Some 27% of children in my constituency are growing up in relative poverty; in the ward of Boscombe West, that figure is 43%, and in the ward of Springbourne, it is 36%. That is unacceptable in 2025 in modern Britain, and we should not put up with it. Looking beyond my constituency, a near-record 2.8 million people are out of work due to long-term sickness—thrown on the scrapheap. Some 300,000 people fall out of work every year because of their health, and part of the reason for that is the underfunding of our public services; that leaves people on waiting lists, and waiting lists kill.

We know that 4.5 million children are in relative poverty after housing costs, a figure that has risen by 900,000 since 2010. We also know that the Tories presided over the worst Parliament ever recorded for economic inactivity; it rose by over 800,000 to 9.4 million people. We hear from Opposition Members about the connection between work and welfare, but when they presided over such economic inactivity, such poor productivity and such sluggish growth, is it any wonder—

[John Glen]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Hayes]

I will not be taking an intervention.

Is it any wonder that, as a consequence, we have people who are in significant difficulty, particularly when the social security and public services that they rely on have been chopped back?

As such, I welcome the launch of the child poverty taskforce as an early priority of this Government. I was pleased to meet the Minister just last week to talk about my priorities, which include trying to make sure that play is not squeezed out of childhood and that we have a social security system to meet the needs of children, particularly in the disadvantaged areas of my constituency.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague from Dorset for giving way. He has talked about the issues outside his constituency of Bournemouth East, and he does not have to look far to see some of the inequalities that are in play—only to West Dorset. He will know from our beautiful part of the countryside that delivering services, including access to affordable healthcare, is even more difficult in rural Britain due to the sparsity of the population. That makes it even more important to support those most vulnerable members of our community.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He invites me to champion his work. I do not think I will do that, but I will acknowledge his hard work and commitment, and I am pleased that he is a colleague.

The child poverty taskforce is going to be critical. The report that it will release, based on feedback from all Members of this House and all our civil society organisations, will be so important, so I am glad that we are taking the time to get this right. It will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity truly to tackle the root causes of child poverty. I am also pleased that, although we have launched that taskforce, this Government are cracking on with the hard work. Just this week, we have seen the announcement of the better futures fund—£500 million from this Government, to be matched by £500 million from local government and the private sector. In total, that is a £1 billion fund that will make a huge difference.

Similarly, I am pleased that we are providing free school meals for all children in families that are on universal credit—that will have a significant impact for my constituents. I am also pleased about the revamped Sure Start, which I think we should talk about more. A revamped Sure Start in all of our local authority areas, with the money that is being given to it, will be able to spot some of the hardships—the physical and mental health issues—that arise from poverty, and to tackle its root causes as well as its symptoms. It will give children a chance to grow, play, learn from each other and develop with peer support, and it will enable their parents, who have been starved of parenting support under the Conservatives, to learn from each other and get what they need. We have a long way to go in order to reverse the decline caused by the Conservatives and lift as many kids as possible out of poverty, but together across this House, I believe that we all have the solutions. I hope we can take this debate forward in the right way and lift those kids out of poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for initiating a debate that enables us to discuss one of the most critical issues facing our nation: child poverty. Every child growing up in poverty represents a future diminished, opportunity denied and potential unfulfilled. Every child deserves the best start in life, so that they can learn, achieve and go on to live the best life that they deserve. That is why tackling child poverty is now firmly back at the top of the Government’s agenda.

For 14 years, the previous Government presided over a shameful legacy that led directly to this crisis. As others have said, they left us with 4.5 million children in relative poverty, including 3,000 in my constituency. Since 2010, child poverty increased by a staggering 900,000 children, but instead of trying to tackle the problem, the Conservatives decided in 2015 to abolish the target of eradicating child poverty. Their motion and, indeed, their rhetoric allude to the idea that Governments should “make work pay,” but when they were in government they oversaw the first Parliament on record with living standards lower at its end than at its start.

Some within the Conservative ranks have today shown a shocking disregard for this issue. They have talked of personal responsibility, but their version of personal responsibility appears to be lecturing others on it rather than taking any themselves. If they were taking personal responsibility on child poverty, they would come to the House and explain why it rose by 90,000 children. Was it a matter of policy design, was it a matter of policy failure, or was it, indeed, the fault of the children themselves?

[Tom Hayes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that people in disadvantaged and poorer areas typically live in overcrowded, poor-quality rented accommodation, and that this Labour Government’s efforts to improve the quality of rented accommodation should be commended as a way of tackling child poverty?

[Luke Murphy]

Absolutely. As one who has fought outside the House for significant investment in affordable housing, particularly social housing, I greatly welcome the Government’s massive investment in the affordable housing programme.

It falls to this Government to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind. We are committed to driving down poverty and driving up opportunity in every part of our country, delivering the change that the country so desperately needs. We have already made a considerable downpayment on the comprehensive strategy on child poverty that is due later this year, providing free school meals for all children in households receiving universal credit, for which so many of my Labour colleagues campaigned for many months and years; delivering free breakfast clubs in schools; reforming universal credit deductions with a new fair repayment rate, which the Minister mentioned earlier and which puts hundreds of pounds back into the pockets of 700,000 of the poorest families; and increasing the standard allowance of universal credit.

Looking ahead, our plan to get Britain working involves the biggest investment in employment support in a generation, including an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament for work, health and skills support through a “Pathways to Work” offer.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. It would be great if the Minister could clarify from the Dispatch Box that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money. If the hon. Member can give that commitment on behalf of the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked the Minister to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference say, “We do not want money to be saved,” that is grand, but I could not find that in the terms of reference.

I would like to hear from the Minister on whether he has been asked to save money through the review. Disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the Government’s actions and their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. I think we should hear from the Minister whether he will be trying to save money or putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that co-production happens with that.

I have some questions about the severe conditions criteria. I am concerned because the Bill’s wording is different from what the DWP has been putting out in press releases. Press releases such as the one quoted today in The Guardian have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible under the severe conditions criteria. However, the Bill says that a claimant would need to have a condition “constantly”.

The Minister needs to give an explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box. The UK Government have decided not to give the Bill a proper Bill Committee, where we would have asked these questions, hashed this out and got that level of clarification, and people are really scared. As the Minister will know, a significant number of amendments have been tabled on these conditions, from parties across the House. Concerns have been raised, because schedule 1 to the Bill states:

“A descriptor constantly applies to a claimant if that descriptor applies to the claimant at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.”

So if one of the descriptors is about being able to get around or being able to wash yourself, that paragraph says that the descriptor must apply “constantly”. If that is not the case, we need a clear explanation about that from the Minister. I cannot find the need for a condition to apply “constantly” in previous legislation. It seems to me that this is a new addition.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Last week we heard the Minister say, from the Dispatch Box, that descriptors, activities and associated points will all be subject to the Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people. Was the hon. Member listening to that statement, and does she accept that as a fact given at the Dispatch Box?

[Kirsty Blackman]

No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I rise to support the removal of clause 5 and the associated amendments, and to comment on a few other amendments, based on what I have read and learned.

Many things have been said in this debate, in the Chamber and outside, but it is undeniable that the system is not working for far too many people. We see a welfare bill rising, people trapped on benefits, and opportunities lost. The most heartbreaking part of all this is not the monetary cost, which we seem to talk about too much, but the cost to people of being written off, and spending a lifetime in a failed, broken system. We all hear stories every week, through our casework and in our surgeries, of people who want to work but do not have the necessary support; of the intrusive nature of assessments; of bureaucracy that needs a human touch; of people fearing to try work for fear of losing their benefits; and of disabled people who need more support.

One of my hon. Friends, who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about the broken social contract. While we approach this debate, and this subject, with the compassion and care that are needed, we should also be clear that the social contract is already broken. There is nothing honourable about denying or slowing down action to tackle the problem of 2.8 million people being thrown on the scrapheap for being sick, or long-term sick. There is nothing to cherish from the Conservatives, who left this Government a legacy of nearly 1 million young people thrown on the scrapheap, not in employment, not in education and not in any meaningful walk of life. No one can say that the system is not broken, and that is the spirit in which many of us in this Chamber have sought, from different perspectives, to approach this legislation. I want to speak against amendments that seek to delay or wreck this Bill, because whatever happens next, we need to get going.

One of the criticisms of this Government that I sometimes hear is that we do not move fast enough. Now that we have started to fix our broken welfare system, we are being told by some that we are going too fast. I think we can move forward with a Bill that begins to fix the foundations of our welfare system, and do so with compassion for those most in need, and I welcome contributions that we have heard today. I also welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to our concerns about the Bill and decided last week to remove clause 5, because it caused anxiety not just to Members of this House, but to many people outside who saw the risk.

Bringing the Timms review forward before any changes are made, and committing to fully involving disabled people and their organisations, is the right thing to do; the Government have listened. I recognise many of the points made in passionate speeches, and I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I hope the Minister will address that, and assure the House that the sentiment has been taken on board, because the new clause will make the Bill better, not worse, and clear the fog.

It is important that we push ahead with this Bill. As colleagues have said, work is central to Labour’s mission, because dignity comes from good work and from employers who embrace their employees and give people the ability to work. There is no dignity in allowing 2.8 million people to be thrown on the scrapheap, with no ability to get off it.

[Tom Hayes]

I recognise exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, because both my parents were forced out of work. They were unwell, and could not get the support they needed from the NHS. They could not get a foot in the door of the social security system and, as their health got worse, they got further away from the workforce. I wish that we had had better support for them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is positive that the Government are open to setting a disability employment target, which could drive action? In my constituency of Bournemouth East, the rate stands at an unacceptable 24% after 14 years of the Conservatives.

[Andrew Pakes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a powerful case for why our job today is to fix the Bill, not kill it.

We should be passionate about the centrality and dignity of work. Unemployed young people in my constituency, and those who are disabled, are frustrated by a system that does not work, and they want the Government to work with them to fix it. That mission was true 80 years ago, when the post-war Attlee Government were elected to pick up the pieces following the devastation of the second world war. Similarly, our Government’s mission today is to fix the foundations of a broken welfare system and a broken economy.

As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the welfare trap on young people. I represent a city with one of the highest levels of—this is a horrible phrase—young people who are NEET, or not in employment, education or training, and who are starting their adult life on benefits. We know that the trend has not been helped by the failure of the mental health system and the health system, which has put pressure on people without offering them any help or support to get them through.

I am a passionate advocate of apprenticeships. It cannot be right that so many young people in Peterborough and around the country are starting their adult lives on benefits, and I agree that we should not be paying benefits so that young people can stay at home. We should be investing in young people’s ability to earn, learn and train.

I hope the Minister will expand on those points when he comes to respond to the debate, because it is morally, politically and economically right that young people should be earning and learning, and it is right that we proceed with this Bill. Following the removal of clause 5, I am content that this Bill begins the journey of fixing the system. It is the start, not the end, but it is a start we need to make.

Welfare Reform

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we already have what we are calling a collaboration committee on the pathways-to-work funding to ensure that it really meets the needs of sick and disabled people. As I have said in the House before, it really is about a pathway to work—for some people, just getting out of the house, or getting out of bed, is a huge achievement; for others, it might be about going along to a group, beginning to speak to other people and getting their confidence back. It really is a pathway to success. We will be setting out precise allocations of the pathways-to-work funding in due course, but I want to reassure Members that it will be available in every single part of the country.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I grew up caring for two disabled parents. As a kid, I saw at first hand the harms that happen when the British state routinely lets down disabled people. It is why disabled civil rights activists have a phrase, “Nothing about us without us,” and it is why I am looking for genuine and meaningful co-production.

On Friday, I brought together seven Bournemouth support organisations and people with lived experience, and they wanted me to raise two issues. The first is continuing concern about the eligibility criteria. The second is whether the mental health support that the Government are rolling out will be in place in sufficient quantity to support potential new claimants by November 2026.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about mental health support. This Government are determined to ensure that there is parity of esteem between physical and mental health. We have already recruited 6,700 of the 8,500 additional mental health workers we promised in our manifesto, and we are putting in place new emergency mental health services and bringing in new Young Futures hubs, which will include mental health support. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is determined to ensure that that support is available in every part of the country. I am sure we will hear more in the coming weeks and months.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point, but the Green Paper is very clear about the protections provided for people who are terminally ill. There are special rules in place, and they will absolutely be maintained. She can be very much reassured about what the Green Paper says about that group. If there is a point that I have missed that she has spotted, I would be grateful to hear about it, but we have very robust protections for those people for exactly the reasons she sets out.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I grew up caring for two disabled parents. As I said in my maiden speech, I would not be here if it was not for the sacrifices they made when they had so little in the first place. I have seen both my mother and my father forced out of work by their poor health. I have seen their mental health suffer, because they could not get a foot in the door of the NHS. I have seen the consequences in our family home; they suffered significant bouts of depression. I know the dignity and importance of work to people who want to and can work. When my parents’ health got worse, they could not work, so I know the importance of protections for people like them. I am pleased that the Government are emphasising both parts of the issue. Will the Minister please assure my constituents, who are concerned because of the leak, into which an official inquiry is under way, that the Government are truly listening to our constituents? Will he give the assurance that, through the pathways to work consultation, the Government want to hear from disability groups in my constituency, including the Cambian Wing college, whose representatives I met on Monday, and other organisations? Will he also reassure the public that the Government are committed to closing the disability employability gap? We need employers to support people into work, too.

[Mr Speaker]

I understand that this is a very important urgent question—that is why it was granted—but I need to try to get everybody in; that is what I am bothered about. If we can speed up questions and answers, that would help us all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

One person who has never looked the other way when people were facing poverty in this country is my hon. Friend. Through her innovation, she has ensured that household food insecurity is measured properly, and I pay tribute to her efforts. I have listened to what she said about Feeding Britain, and I will take that as an input into the child poverty taskforce. I hope that she and Feeding Britain will meet me to discuss how we can take that forward.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to help support parents who are looking for work.

[The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)]

Helping parents to have fulfilling and sustainable work helps our economy and prevents child poverty. As we have mentioned several times, the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will rewrite employment policy and set our ambition for an 80% employment rate, but we will not get there without parents.

[Tom Hayes]

In recent weeks, I have met the DWP in Bournemouth and advice agencies including the citizens advice bureau for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. Advice agencies welcome the record increase in carers allowance that was announced in the Budget. They and in-work parents with disabled children have also asked about the transition from child tax credit to universal credit. That may be a matter for the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, but can the Minister say how the Government will further support such parents to work and earn, and flexibly meet their families’ needs?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House, and I pay tribute to all those he has worked with to understand the challenge that we face. He is right that we will take this forward through the “Get Britain Working” White Paper. Citizens Advice is playing an important role in supporting that work, and the work of the child poverty taskforce.