Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Jim Shannon

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?

Work Capability Assessment Timescales

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Work Capability Assessment timescales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I welcome the Minister to his place to discuss this important issue. I am grateful to him and his office for their recent engagement with my office on this issue. I am sure he has gathered from our recent correspondence that the focus of my remarks today will not be about the timescales for first-time applications for work capability assessments, but those for people who have requested a new assessment or a reassessment.

There are lots of reasons why someone might need a new assessment. No health condition follows a set path. Although we hope that someone’s health might stay stable or improve, often that is not the way it works out. I do not know how many applicants are waiting for brand-new work capability assessments, but I know that the Minister wrote to me last month to tell me there was a backlog of 35,000 reassessments waiting to be seen. That is a lot of people struggling or unable to work and arguably not getting the support that they need. In response to recent parliamentary questions, I was told that the Department has no breakdown on that backlog, which I find quite concerning. I hope the Minister will take that away. I hope he will tell me in his remarks all the ways they are trying to fix the backlog, but I put it to him that we cannot add capacity if we do not know where to target, so we need a breakdown of that backlog.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. To add my support from a personal point of view, in my office I have a lady who looks after nothing else but benefits. She has told me that there are major issues regarding reassessment waiting times for those who are up for review. The official internal figures for Northern Ireland show that the mean average wait was around 290 working days—58 weeks—and some people are waiting as long as seven to eight years. I have to say, in all honesty, those are extremes, but it does underline the very issue that the hon. Lady is talking about. Does she agree that the one way to solve this problem is more staff? They must be hired to deal with the backlog, as applicants are feeling stressed and anxious that their financial stability might change.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I will go on to talk about my own caseworkers’ experience. It is right that we recognise that they are the people dealing with the brunt of this. I am going to outline some of the challenges and what I hope the Minister might tell us he is doing to address those.

There are different assessment providers across the UK. Maximus serves my constituency of North East Fife, whereas other assessment contracts sit with Capita, Serco and Ingeus. I would be grateful for more staffing near North East Fife, but the Department for Work and Pensions seems to have no knowledge of whether the problems are greater in Scotland or Skegness. When I talk about delays, I am not talking about a service standard being missed by a few weeks or even a few months. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I have cases where wait times are 18 months or more.

I want to talk about the impact of such delays on people on the waiting list. I hope the Minister and you, Mr Western, will understand that for the security and wellbeing of my constituents, I am not going to share individual details. There are common denominators across the cases that can paint a picture but, as most MPs know, the people we support are often vulnerable and have suffered considerably in their lifetimes, and it is important that we safeguard their welfare.

The common denominators are backgrounds of serious abuse, sometimes back to childhood—abuse that is hard to imagine and has a serious impact on adult mental health and wellbeing; severe anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder; physical symptoms and pain, sometimes linked to external factors like car accidents and other times linked to past and ongoing trauma. I also have at least one case waiting for a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In general, there is extreme vulnerability across the board.

Summer 2024 seems like a long time ago. There were 243 happy and optimistic newly elected Labour MPs filling the Palace, the Paris Olympics were just kicking off, London was full of Swifties for the Eras tour, and my constituents were taking the difficult decision that their health struggles were too much to manage to hold down a job and starting the process of requesting support from the DWP. That illustrates how long they have been waiting. These extended waits are absolutely debilitating. The not knowing is incredibly difficult. I think all MPs know from experience that these people worry to the point of obsessive hyper-fixation that their existing benefits will be taken away. That is added to by the stigma people feel for not being able to support themselves or their children, relying on the food bank and not being able to meet their basic needs for energy or clothes, and the anxiety of being judged by those around them.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned his caseworkers. I spoke with my caseworkers in the run-up to this debate. I want to take a moment to appreciate our caseworkers, because we need to remember that they are not trained as benefit advisers, counsellors or welfare specialists, but they are the ones picking up the phones day in, day out, trying to unpick what has gone wrong and providing back-up to constituents who find themselves in crisis with nowhere else to go. That is true of all MPs’ offices.

Academic Technology Approval Scheme

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Academic Technology Approval Scheme.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher; I wish you a happy new year, although we are probably in the dregs of when we can say that. I welcome the Minister for what I hope will be a constructive half-hour debate. I will start by briefly setting out what ATAS is, because if I have learned one thing in the last few months, it is that it has quite low salience—including, I regret to say, in the Foreign Office. If this debate achieves nothing else, I hope it resolves that.

ATAS, known properly as the academic technology approval scheme, is a system by which additional checks are carried out on international students and researchers of certain nationalities, or those working in security-related fields. It is clearly an incredibly important process, and one that exists in some form in most other countries where advanced research is taking place. ATAS checks are most commonly needed when individuals will be studying, researching or working in subject topics that could be used to develop advanced conventional military technology or weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

There is an obvious reason why it is important to get ATAS right. The type of research that, in the wrong hands, could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction is also the type of research that is critical for making many non-military advancements. For example, biophysics research in molecular medicine involves groundbreaking discoveries in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases that can change the lives of millions of people. Creating novel chemical materials could revolutionise food packaging and how it is recycled.

We all know that we need better energy systems and sources. Buses now commonly run on hydrogen, a move that in Scotland, I am proud to say, was supported by experts in the school of chemistry at the University of St Andrews in my constituency. And then there is artificial intelligence. We know that it is having a huge impact on how we live our lives, and I want to ensure that the best and brightest are here in the UK working on it, ensuring that the development of AI includes the necessary guardrails to prevent its abuse. Those are just a few examples of research subjects that could require ATAS approval for an international student or academic.

My point is that if we want the UK to be a world leader in research and development, which is key to the Government’s modern industrial strategy, then we need to attract the brightest and the best. We cannot do that if the security checks needed to process their visas are not working.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for always bringing forward incredibly important subjects, both to Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. Universities back home, such as Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, have many ATAS students and researchers who study in sensitive areas such as science, engineering and technology. Many of the funded research positions have been delayed or even unfilled due to ATAS processing times having a significant impact on the system. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done for clearance to be secured in a timely manner so that advantage can be taken of vital research postings?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member always manages to touch in advance on the key topics that we will raise in the debate, and timescales in relation to ATAS is certainly one of the things that I will touch on.

I turn to the time it takes for ATAS checks to be carried out. I am grateful that the Minister wrote to me last week confirming a standard timeframe of 30 working days—six weeks—to process applications. That seems quite reasonable for something technical that we clearly want to get right. The problem is that that response timescale is not exactly everyone’s experience. I have had casework for academics and students coming to the University of St Andrews with delays of up to six months, an experience that is shared by the Russell Group of universities, which reached out to me in advance of this debate.

Processing delays are not anything new, but there are a few elements that I want to pull out. Most postgraduate programmes of study and research programmes have defined start and end dates, which is particularly true when grant funding is being utilised. Missing those start dates due to ATAS delays means that research students miss the start of their course, and that research projects might need to delay their start dates or begin without key personnel. The University of St Andrews will not make a formal offer without ATAS being completed, and the student cannot apply for their visa without receiving a formal offer from the university. These are the different roadblocks on the way to getting approval.

Sir Christopher, can you imagine securing the funding for groundbreaking research and attracting the best global talent, only to find, days before the project is due to start, that you still do not know whether you can go ahead? You find yourself having to go back to the finance provider to ask for leniency and change contract dates and funding arrangements—all while worrying that the funding might ultimately be withdrawn. That could jeopardise your chances of receiving future support, or mean that the individual in question gives up on the process and secures employment elsewhere.

Although I am relieved to know from my conversations with the University of St Andrews that it has managed to deal with the stress of these concerns—but not the losses themselves—I have been told by the Russell Group about other universities that have experienced researchers and students withdrawing applications and going to other research-intensive nations instead, and about large research and development businesses withdrawing from university-led projects because they could not wait any longer for applications to be approved.

I therefore ask the Minister whether the 30-day standard period is a reasonable reflection of capacity. Would a 40 or even 50-day target perhaps be better? Then universities and applicants could plan accordingly. Could that be put into a formal, service-level agreement, so that universities, applicants and funding providers could manage expectations? There are naturally peaks to the number of applications for review over the summer, given that the academic cycle, even for non-taught research, tends to start in the autumn. Could the Government be taking steps to prepare for that? Could extra resources be put in place? I understand that the highly technical nature of the checks being carried out means that there is a need for scientific experts, who are already in high demand in Whitehall. Does the Minister feel that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has sufficient scientific capacity to meet demand? Is that something that engagement with the university sector and the specialists we have here could resolve?

I have mentioned casework, because for MPs that is a huge part of our job. Visa problems, Department for Work and Pensions issues and HM Revenue and Customs delays are the bread and butter of our inbox and the work that our constituency staff do. It is a question of trying to find out the problem and what can be done to unstick whatever is stuck. But frustratingly, we cannot do that with ATAS. There is just one email address, for use by universities, MPs, students or anyone else who needs to get in touch. I am not sure that I have ever received a response from it. I am not surprised—it must be absolutely inundated.

Surely there must be a better system. I would rather we did not have delays with visas or pensions, which my team have to chase up on constituents’ behalf, but this is at least something that we can do and that can give some answers as to why things are moving slowly and when an answer can be expected. Will the Minister look into an MP hotline for ATAS or a dedicated email address for use by registered universities? We can of course get in touch with the Home Office, as ATAS delays stop visas being processed, but this does not help at all, with UK Visas and Immigration officials left as in the dark as everyone else over the status of an ATAS check. Like us, all they can do is wait.

The opacity of the system was thrown into sharp relief for me towards the end of last year by one particular piece of casework. My constituent, an academic at the University of St Andrews, was applying for his visa to be renewed. This was all completely routine, but tragically, after his having submitted all the information and with the ATAS checks under way, his father unexpectedly took ill and passed away. He naturally wanted to travel home to Syria to see his family, pay his respects and, as the eldest son, arrange and play a part in his father’s funeral. He immediately contacted UKVI and asked for permission to travel.

The next developments, I understand, are outwith the remit of the Minister and are not why we are here today, but they are worth noting. There does not seem to be a Home Office exemption to allow time-limited bereavement travel, even where evidence of death has been provided; and the UKVI escalation process, while effective, is still slow in consideration of the cultural norms for burial soon after death in many countries.

All of that means that my constituent had missed his father’s funeral before any answers were received. He still wanted to return home to be with his family and pay his respects as soon as possible, and this is where we return to ATAS, because he was told that if he left the country, he would need to start his visa and ATAS applications all over again. That would require him to incur significant cost and uncertainty and risk serious disruption to his ongoing academic responsibilities. The only option, we were told by the Home Office, was to try to get his visa renewal through as quickly as possible. That left one big stumbling block: the inability to directly contact, chase or otherwise check in with ATAS over his security checks. This was without knowing how long the current waiting period was, and without ATAS having any guidance or grounds for expedition in compassionate circumstances.

My team are a pretty resourceful bunch, and they tried everything they could think of. They obviously emailed the public email address, and we wrote to the FCDO. We rang the FCDO helpline, and I was told on that phone call that the FCDO did not know what ATAS was and whether it was part of its remit. That is a bit worrying. When it was explained, we were told that surely this was the responsibility of the Home Office. It went on.

There is a positive ending in this case. Although my constituent missed the funeral and the initial mourning period, his checks did go through and his visa was renewed. He was able to see his mother and sister and pay his respects to his father. I am not convinced that anything done by my office—or indeed by me, because I did try to speak to a couple of FCDO Ministers in the House—did anything in that regard.

I know that the Minister will point out that in the end my constituent’s ATAS checks were done within the six-week processing window. It is true that this is not one of the cases of terrible delay that I referred to earlier, but it clearly demonstrates the need for escalation routes for MPs or sponsoring universities, transparent processing timeframes, and a compassionate travel route or other allowances for bereaved applicants—or at least knowledge of what the process can and should be and whether indeed it is possible at all. Above all, there should be some form of knowledge or oversight within the FCDO, given that nobody seemed to know that ATAS existed or was an FCDO responsibility.

Something called the academic technology approval scheme might sound incredibly dry, but I hope that this debate demonstrates that it is incredibly important. It is important for our industrial strategy, medical breakthroughs, securing our energy future, and supporting our universities and our security as a nation. It is also about people. These issues are not minor. Roughly a quarter of the University of St Andrews’s skilled worker visa applications last year involved ATAS checks, and a tenth of the ATAS students had their start days impacted. As proud as I am of the university, I know it is not the only top-level research centre in the UK. If we add up those figures, we are looking at thousands of delays and research projects impacted, as well as time and money lost. I hope that the Minister will set out how we can address these issues and bring ATAS and its processes into the light.

ECO4 Scheme Redress

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I will go on to mention the particular challenge with older properties, but my hon. Friend’s example illustrates exactly what the issue is. This scheme is under the auspices of Ofgem and is funded through the Government levy on energy bills, but does not have any real oversight, so consumers end up being let down.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She always brings applicable issues to Westminster Hall, and today is as an example of that, with the horrific example of the almost inconceivable standard of work done to her constituent’s house.

The ECO4 scheme does not apply in Northern Ireland, where we have a fuel assistance scheme. Eligibility can be very tight and residents with more than a certain amount in their savings accounts find that they may not qualify. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done to loosen the rules for our elderly generation, particularly in boiler replacement or energy schemes?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He illustrates that, although this is a GB scheme and not applicable in Northern Ireland, consumers and more vulnerable residents in Northern Ireland face the same challenges regarding energy efficiency. The Government have a responsibility, working with the Northern Ireland Assembly, to improve the situation there.

We need to get this right, not just so there is faith in the schemes—although that is vital—but so works under them do not end up costing people even more in lost energy costs. It is clear that some things are going badly wrong under the ECO schemes as they stand. The Government need to address them for the remainder of properties that might do upgrades under ECO4 and for future iterations of the scheme.

First, there is a complete lack of transparency in how households are driven to the scheme and, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation either. I have talked about how Jackie and her husband felt railroaded from wondering if they would be entitled to anything for upgrades, to their home being pulled apart. She is not a vulnerable person, but she thinks that the company she dealt with was totally unprepared for being challenged over what was happening. Another constituent who had a terrible outcome under the scheme has described themselves as vulnerable and feels that the system was set up to target people like them.

As my team and I have gone further into such cases, I was surprised that more MPs are not shouting about this issue. Clearly, it is not limited just to one company or to North East Fife. When I spoke to Fuel Poverty Action this week, it told me that it is seeing only the most determined victims complaining—the rest are highly vulnerable people. From what I have seen, if companies offer to pay any compensation at all after months of fighting—even if it will not cover the cost of the remedial works—it is on the condition that all complaints be withdrawn. I therefore cannot help but wonder how many people have felt that they had to accept, and now are not in a position to tell us about their experiences.

Secondly, the funding model for ECO4 places incentives on companies to upgrade rural homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I understand the logic of that, but rural homes, as he said, tend to be a lot older and less uniform than urban ones, so we would ideally want a proper survey to be not only done, but carried out by a specialist retrofit co-ordinator. The fact is, however, is that we do not have anywhere near enough of them.

TrustMark data indicates that although more than 2,000 individuals have completed the retrofit co-ordinator qualification, just 612 are registered with the quality mark and only 230 are actively lodging work in the data warehouse. Of the 230 active co-ordinators, around 30% are lodging the majority of those projects. That means around 66 specialists are overseeing the vast majority of retrofit works. We clearly need more, and the Government need to worry about that skills shortage.

According to Ashden, the UK will need up to 50,000 retrofit co-ordinators in coming years if we are going to reach our goals for making homes energy efficient. In the meantime, what requirements are there for works to be properly overseen by a specialist? Do contractors have to employ one and risk cutting into their margins? Are there requirements for co-ordinators to actually visit a property, provide plans, speak with the owners and review works as they go? I wonder if the mysterious middle man I mentioned earlier was a retrofit co-ordinator—it is just not clear. What is clear is that none of these steps took place in that case.

Similarly, the short-term nature of the scheme means that we are not skilling up the workforce—the plasterers, electricians and plumbers—that we need to do these works. ECO4 is the longest iteration of the schemes and has been running for almost four years, but it is due to close next spring, and we still do not know what will replace it. Short schemes with short-notice changes do not allow businesses to invest in training or properly plan for the future. Even for the best-intentioned companies and tradespeople, that is not commercially viable. That was all underlined by evidence from across the sector in the recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report. The industry needs a 10-year plan so that it can invest in upskilling, take on apprenticeships knowing there will be work for them after their training, and be prepared to take on the challenge of making our homes future-proof.

Finally on ECO4, there desperately needs to be some clarity over how works are certified and payments are made. These are not just individual contractual disputes; the fact that Ofgem is administering the scheme tells a very different story. As I understand it, to get paid, an installer needs to register the works with TrustMark, providing photos, energy performance certificate ratings and so on. That is then validated before Ofgem releases the funds.

Considering the hundreds, if not thousands, of homes being damaged around the country, what precise validation is happening? Is money being released for those ruined homes? What requirements are there on traders not just to say, “Sure, we installed a heat pump,” but to actually prove they have put a home back to the way it was? Where else is the money going in the supply line of referrals that I talked about earlier? Who is getting paid, by whom and for what?

I have talked a lot about ECO4, but I want to touch briefly on the wider consumer protection landscape because, now that things have gone wrong, that is where my constituents and many others are battling. I do not think it is controversial to say that it is a bit of a mess. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed that in its 2023 report on consumer protection in green heating and insulation sector. It was reiterated by Citizens Advice in its “Hitting a Wall” report last year, and again by the ESNZ Committee in its “Retrofitting homes for net zero” report in spring.

I am aware—as I am sure the Minister will reference—that the Government are currently considering responses to a consultation on requiring the microgeneration certification scheme to be the sole certification scheme for clean heat installations. Having seen constituents, and my caseworkers on their behalf, battle through a maze of different accreditation and oversight bodies to try to find someone to take responsibility for this work, a single body seems incredibly sensible, but I still have some questions.

How would that one body sit alongside TrustMark and Ofgem? Would it replace TrustMark and, if so, how would it be better equipped to accredit and oversee retrofit contractors? Would it solve the problem of traders being able to say they are accredited, and showing that they are accredited, when complaints have already started coming in? At the moment, it is far too easy for them to chop and change logos, or to continue to display a logo that they should not be able to. How do we make that new, single body sufficiently powerful and reactive so that it can be trusted by consumers?

Policy specialists recently suggested to me that local authorities could be trusted to keep a list of accredited local traders. I had to tell them that some already do. Indeed, in North East Fife, a contractor just told constituents that they were not displayed yet due to a delay in the application process. That is very believable, given how stretched local government is.

What happens to consumers when their homes are left ruined, with works poorly carried out, and the companies have lied about being certified or have now dissolved and vanished? What will happen to people stuck in the original system, whose works were carried out under the current failing scheme, who are being pushed from pillar to post with no end point in sight? Those are the experiences of my constituents and many others. To keep fighting for someone to be on their side is breaking them. Where is their solution?

Failures in consumer protection clearly go beyond the ECO4 scheme, but there are particular problems for consumers funded via ECO4. So many people, often vulnerable, are pushed into having work done, and the nature of the schemes increases the chances of being allocated an unskilled or rogue trader. Some of the people I have spoken to in the run-up to today have said that this is a scandal that no one takes responsibility for, and they are very concerned about speaking out about it. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns this morning.

Unpaid Carers

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is great to be back, and to see you in the Chair. I congratulate you on your new position.

Caring or being cared for is an almost universal experience. Almost everybody will find themselves being an unpaid carer for their loved ones at some point in their life, or being cared for by loved ones. Who among us does not know somebody who is helping an elderly parent, or supporting a family member with a long-term illness? As new MPs will come to learn, almost every week here, we have an opportunity to learn about and mark a national awareness day for a different devastating illness. For every person suffering from those illnesses, there will inevitably be a family member—unseen—supporting and caring for them.

According to the recent census, there are 5.7 million unpaid carers in England and Wales, but those are just the people who recognise themselves as such. In 2022, Carers UK research estimated that there were up to 10.6 million unpaid carers. Whichever figure we use, that is a huge number, and the figure is growing. According to very recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, by 2035 there will be an 11% increase in the number of unpaid carers, and as degenerative conditions, including chronic degenerative conditions, become more prevalent, the amount of care that carers do is predicted to go up; it is expected that ever more will provide more than 35 hours of care each week.

The Government should care about carers, not just because that is the right thing to do, and not even because unpaid carers are in homes across every constituency in the UK, but because we need them. Unpaid carers are absolutely vital to our economy and our society.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. The House is fuller than usual for this Adjournment debate, which indicates the importance of the issue. Every one of us knows people who are carers. I care for my brother, who had a big accident 20 years ago, and I understand what it means to be a carer and to be available at all times, as others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that respite for carers is an essential component of support, and that inability to access respite care will push many into making the unwanted decision to give up caring and instead institutionalise the people they care for, due to the unbearable pressure on their mental health?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and as he and I know, having served in the last Parliament, during covid the lack of respite care was a critical factor for many carers. It is clear that we all need to do more in that area.

We were talking about how vital carers are to our economy and society. The economic value of unpaid care is £162 billion a year in England and Wales, £13.1 billion in Scotland and £5.8 billion in Northern Ireland. We know the country’s finances have been left in a ruinous state by the last Government, and that the social care system is already stretched to breaking point. We must also know that we cannot take the contribution of unpaid carers for granted, so I hope that the Minister will take tonight as an opportunity to show that the Government do care about unpaid carers.

In a debate shortly before the general election was called, the then shadow Minister for care, who is now a Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), committed Labour to developing a new carers strategy if it formed the next Government:

“There will be a carers strategy under the next Labour Government, because we value the vital work our carers do. It will be a cross-Government strategy with the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education and the future of work review all feeding into it along with the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a brighter future for those living with dementia and their families and carers. Labour will deliver it.”

Given that promise, I hope that the Minister can understand why I and many whom I have spoken to in the care third sector were disappointed that unpaid carers were not mentioned at all in the Labour manifesto. At the same point in the speech I just referred to, the then shadow Minister said that unpaid carers

“will be at the heart of Labour’s plans in Government.” —[Official Report, 16 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 228WH.]

I hope the Minister will take tonight’s debate as an opportunity to make that case.