Alison Hume MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Child Contact Arrangements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the issue. I completely agree that unfortunately we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved and have had their children removed from them without any basis for doing so at all. Lives are being destroyed. If a parent complains, there is a very significant risk that that will be used against them. Ultimately, it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if regulated and unregulated experts both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly on mothers and their children. The advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge’s decision about child contact arrangements: the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report highlighted the fact that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the family court without robust scrutiny. Evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. A constituent of mine had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse. The non-profit Right to Equality has conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact-finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers. I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high-risk arrangements by the family court. Julia Margo, the co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, with which I have been working closely, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system. After discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles, during which he took her to court 37 times demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the court seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile. In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at 10 years old. That day, a social worker came to the house and told her that she had half an hour to pack her things. The child recalled: “I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag—this blue shirt and leggings—along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It is what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away.” The young girl later discovered that that simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents had separated two years earlier. She said: “The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parent’s feelings, and it was a sign of abuse.” At 12 years old, the child wrote to the president of the family division, England’s most senior family judge, seeking the representation that she was previously denied. A district judge had found abuse from her father and found that her mother harboured a great deal of anger against him. A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Mark Berelowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was that she had been subjected to her mother’s “unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of their relationship.” The judge then ordered that the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father. It is clear that in this case, as in so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child’s wishes during the court process. In the child’s words: “I was removed from my mother’s care within hours of a court order being made…I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me. They said I was repeating my mother’s words and that, despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the person who frightened me.” Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against the mother. She had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings. Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary. In December 2019, the court ordered that the children, who were then aged nine and 12, be removed, and it granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. In overturning court findings informed by Gill’s reports, the president of the family division’s ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases. Guidance published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024 says that experts should not be appointed to look for alienation; instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific alienating behaviours. It was this new information that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court. In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the family division has recognised the significant barriers that mothers face when seeking to appeal and has asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I urge the Family Justice Council to consider that proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents who have been wrongfully separated because of pseudoscientific claims can finally have their cases reviewed. However, there is still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. Although the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they will not be able to prevent the underlying error. As a route to justice, such judgments depend on the protective parent securing legal representation, identifying the procedural defect and bringing a part 18 application to set aside, years after the original order. As I have mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. That is why I have been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill; I am grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss it with me. Through the amendment, I propose to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings, before findings of fact are made and before residence is disturbed. That would effectively prevent harm, rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate. We need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and so that allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse. I welcome the fact that, thanks to timeless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement set out in the Children Act 1989. This is a long-overdue correction to the pro-contact culture identified in the 2020 harm report and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the Government’s rolling out of child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker. An important question remains unaddressed, however: when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence? That gap is currently doing significant harm. Too often, in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protected parent. Doing so risks reinterpreting the child’s voice not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation. I am also aware of cases in which a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and those disclosures are then used as evidence of alienation against their mother, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure it can work against the mother, who risks losing the child. My simple amendment would effectively prevent the use of counterclaims of alienation to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves. Does the Minister agree that for many of the hundreds of children and mothers who have been forcibly separated, the route to justice through appeal is hard to access? Does she agree that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children’s voices carry the evidential weight that they should carry in family court proceedings? Does she support strengthening the Courts and Tribunals Bill further so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, the child’s not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Child Contact Arrangements · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that the child’s voice must be heard and is too often overlooked. Some of these so-called experts lack proper qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Changes proposed in 2025 to address the issue of unregulated psychologists have been criticised as too weak and do not affect experts who are registered with the HCPC. HCPC regulation is also limited, with complaints taking up to seven years, during which experts can continue to practise. The proposed changes will not do anything to address parental alienation experts who are successfully registered and regulated. I am concerned that if any reviews or reform focus only on unregulated experts, all that will do is drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts. If parents do file a complaint, that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation, as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. When it comes to transport links for small towns, few can boast the train to Hogsmeade station, where the Hogwarts Express ended its journey north from platform nine and three quarters. The real-life Goathland station, which starred in the Harry Potter films, is just one of the beautiful stations on the Esk Valley railway line from Whitby to Middlesbrough, which follows the route of the River Esk for much of its 24 miles, passing through verdant farmland, rolling moors and picturesque villages. Sadly, the scenery is far more beautiful than the train service. The villain of the piece is not Lord Voldemort, but Dr Beeching, the Minister who cut the Whitby to Scarborough line back in 1965, condemning Whitby to reliance on cars and buses. That Whitby lost its train link to its coastal neighbour is bad enough, but to add insult to injury, the current service that connects Whitby to the nearest big town, Middlesbrough, is one of the worst in the country. That is not the fault of the not-for-profit Esk Valley Railway Development Company, a dedicated community rail partnership that runs the line with passion and flair. Indeed, the company fought hard to get a station opened at James Cook hospital in 2014. The whole point of that stop was to provide access to the hospital; instead, Whitby residents find themselves isolated from essential healthcare. There are only six trains a day, with four-hour gaps in the morning and afternoon. That makes it impossible to plan for a hospital appointment. Constituents have told me they have to stay over at Middlesbrough because they cannot get to and from the hospital in a day. It is not only hospital patients who are frustrated by the poor service, but constituents who want to work in Middlesbrough, where there are many more employment opportunities than in Whitby. The lack of ambition and investment in this essential transport link for Whitby is laid bare when it is compared with another seaside town, in the south. Newquay in Cornwall is not unlike Whitby in size, and it is also at the end of a branch line. Office of Rail and Road figures show that in 2023-24 the Newquay line carried 146,000 passengers, which was down 2%, while the Whitby line carried 257,000, which was up 6.3%. Until recently, both lines suffered from poor train services, but Newquay now has 15 trains on weekdays, 14 on Saturdays and eight on Sundays, thanks to a £57 million investment. According to a press release, there is also a through-train to London, while on the same day Whitby has just six trains. I would love to hear from the Minister how Great British Railways can improve transport links to small towns like Whitby, and open up a world of possibilities for its residents.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement of a new energy security Bill in the King’s Speech, which will meet our manifesto commitment not to issue licences to explore new oil and gas fields. Crucially, it will also deliver on our commitment to ban fracking. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves injecting fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and extract hydrocarbons. In 2019, a moratorium on fracking was introduced following earthquakes linked to fracking activity at Preston New Road in Lancashire. Currently, UK legislation defines fracking based on fluid volume thresholds: 1,000 cubic metres per stage, or 10,000 cubic metres in total. This leaves a legal loophole for oil and gas companies to exploit. In beautiful Burniston in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, Europa Oil & Gas has proposed extracting gas using a technique called proppant squeeze, which is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volumes. This means the technique exists outside the fracking moratorium. In Burniston, on the edge of the North York Moors national park, villagers have been involved in a David and Goliath battle with Europa Oil & Gas. I am delighted to say that North Yorkshire councillors threw out the recommendations of its officers and formally rejected the planning application. However, to create indisputable clarity over fracking legislation in our country and close this loophole, any future ban must include all forms of fracking. Currently, 66 existing licences remain active, and planning applications can still proceed under current rules. If our definition of fracking remains volume-based, we risk companies continuing to frack—just under a different name. Make no mistake: the frackers have not given up. Following North Yorkshire council’s rejection of Europa’s proposal, Europa stated that it felt confident about winning an appeal. The evidence is there for the Government to include small-scale fracking in our ban. A recent report published by the University of Edinburgh found that earthquakes from high-volume fracking and low-volume fracking are equally large and equally unpredictable. This means that the risk of seismicity such as earthquakes induced or triggered from proppant squeeze cannot simply be ruled out. This evidence echoes findings commissioned by the then Oil and Gas Authority into Preston New Road, which also showed that seismic impacts cannot be accurately predicted regardless of fluid volume. I urge the Government to use the upcoming energy security Bill to replace the volume-based definition with one based on intent and process, and to introduce a blanket prohibition on fracturing rock for hydrocarbons. All forms of fracking contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and undermine our net zero commitments, and therefore all forms of fracking need to be banned. Last December, I held a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, and the Minister responded, confirming that the Government remain open to evidence regarding a comprehensive ban. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm what further evidence he requires to ban small-scale fracking—unless, of course, it is earthquakes in Scarborough.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, I was thrilled to see Scarborough rugby union football club crowned regional 2 north-east champions—the highest level in the club’s history. The club does brilliant work in the Scarborough community, with various teams for women and for rugby players of all levels. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Scarborough RUFC’s historic victory and its vital contribution to Scarborough?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. It seems to me that we have been discussing the possibility of restricting the use of fireworks to organised public events for many years and, while we talk, more people suffer life-changing injuries that could be avoided if we had tighter restrictions on the use of fireworks. In my constituency 869 people signed the petition to limit the sale of fireworks to those running local council-approved events. I agree with them. The easy availability of fireworks, which are marketed and sold in the same way as sweets or toys, belies the fact that they are in fact dangerous explosives. On the beaches in my constituency it is the custom for the public to gather and let off fireworks on days such as bonfire night and new year’s eve. I am not sure whether people understand that they could be taking their lives into their own hands if they go on to the beach. I vividly remember running for cover with my children on Tate Hill beach in Whitby, as rockets were let off sideways. Tragically, last year two young men suffered life-changing injuries when fireworks were let off on the Scarborough foreshore near the lifeboat station. Sadly, incidents like those are frighteningly common. In 2025, there was a fourfold increase in firework-related burns to children compared with the previous year—the highest admittance rate in a decade. Most injuries are to the eyes, head or hands, resulting in loss of sight, life-changing injuries and psychological impact. Some of my constituents will disagree with my call for fireworks to be restricted to organised displays; they will say I am spoiling their fun. I humbly disagree. The United Kingdom is out of step with other countries that have already put safety first. The Netherlands is the latest country to implement a nationwide ban on consumer fireworks, joining Germany, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and other countries that have significant restrictions or bans on public sales. Since that implementation, the number of firework-related injuries has been consistently lower. The public are telling us that fireworks are no longer essential for celebrations. A recent poll by the Social Market Foundation found that 91% of the British public would be open to partial replacement of fireworks with alternatives such as drone or light shows. I recently attended a spectacular drone display at Scarborough castle to celebrate 400 years since the spa waters were discovered, and I am certain that not a single person watching will have felt short-changed. Alongside the safety aspect, as we have heard, there is also the impact that the increasingly noisy fireworks have on vulnerable people and animals. Veterans have written to tell me that fireworks trigger their PTSD, and that the impact is even worse when they are set off randomly and on no particular special occasion. As an owner of a rescue dog and cat, I know how scared animals can be by fireworks. Research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has shown that 66% of animals are negatively impacted.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last summer, my constituency suffered the devastating Langdale moor wildfire. The local community, including farmers and businesses, stepped in to help firefighters battle the enormous blaze, which at its height covered 10 square miles. Unlike in the case of flooding, though, there is no clear route to Government grants for wildfire events. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to look urgently at widening the farming recovery fund and flood recovery framework to cover wildfires?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Small-scale Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend that Reform’s plans are a threat to our beautiful countryside, and our constituents do not want them. Europa’s plans have been widely opposed by the local community. In response, campaigners launched a petition that has garnered more than 10,000 signatories calling for a Government ban on small-scale fracking. Fracking—short for “hydraulic fracturing”—is the process of injecting fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation to release the gas or oil inside.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Small-scale Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of banning small-scale fracking operation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on banning small-scale fracking—an issue that I have campaigned on since I was elected MP for Scarborough and Whitby. It has huge local, national and international significance. The issue of small-scale fracking first came to my attention when Europa Oil & Gas applied to explore for gas at Burniston, just outside the picturesque North York Moors. The plans, published in full in March, include erecting a 38-metre-high drilling rig and proposals to carry out small-scale hydraulic fracturing, which Europa calls “proppant squeeze”. The planning application is due to be heard by North Yorkshire council’s strategic planning committee imminently, making this debate extremely timely.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate. According to the Press Gazette , nearly 300 local papers have closed since 2005. We are at a tipping point. The Public Interest News Foundation estimates that 12.5 million people live in areas where there is only one local paper, while 5.4 million people live in news deserts. Local papers provide reliable information at a time when misinformation runs rampant online. My constituency is lucky to have The Scarborough News and Whitby Gazette , which publish a quality weekly paper with a small and dedicated staff. Regionally, we have the York Press , as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the campaigning newspaper The Yorkshire Post. On the air, we have This is the Coast, Coast & County, and of course BBC Radio York and BBC Radio Tees. However, journalists have told me that they are increasingly worried about their own survival—and these journalists are veteran survivors. They have raised concerns about Government proposals to remove the legal requirements to publish alcohol licensing notices and notices on local authority governance changes. The National Union of Journalists has highlighted that local papers remain the main source of news for the digitally excluded. One local editor put it plainly when he said that “denuding print audiences of the right to know what is happening in their community does not feel like community empowerment to me.” I agree with him. Taken together, the changes would deliver a double blow to an already fragile sector. They would deprive titles of reliable revenue, potentially putting papers at risk and impeding the flow of information in our communities. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a local media strategy to ensure that there is trusted local news across the UK. Ahead of the publication of that strategy, I urge the Minister to consider the impact on these valued and trusted titles of proposed changes to the requirement to report notices. If we value local media and the democracy it sustains, we must legislate to protect it.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  On Armistice Day, the country pauses to remember all those who died in the service of our country. For 88-year-old Gordon from Whitby, as for so many others who lost a family member, there is no need to pause, because he remembers every single day. Gordon’s older brother, Bob, who was 18, was killed towards the end of the second world war. Just before he died, Bob wrote a letter to Gordon. Gordon has carried that letter in his jacket pocket, close to his heart, ever since. Last week, I was honoured to meet Gordon at the “Save a Place at the Table” exhibition at Pannett Art Gallery in Whitby, where Bob’s letter had been incorporated into a beautifully embroidered place mat celebrating his life. The long table was set with individual placemats, all commemorating ordinary local people who served our country. Sitting around the table, enjoying tea and cake, were those who had shared their stories and the schoolchildren who were hearing them for the first time. That wonderful community party was the result of a living art project funded by the Arts Council to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. As the generation who served in the second world war leave us, we must ensure not only that the yearly pause continues but that, every single day, we strive to better look after our veterans and serving personnel. I am proud that this Labour Government have put our veterans and armed forces at the heart of our policies. For each of the nearly 5,000 veterans living in Scarborough and Whitby, our renewal of the nation’s contract with them will be judged through the improved support we offer in healthcare, housing and employment. My constituency has a strong and proud military history. Sites such as RAF Fylingdales and GCHQ Scarborough play a crucial role in national security. This weekend, I saw the future of the armed forces at remembrance services, in the cadets who proudly bore standards, stood in line and marched alongside serving personnel and veterans. My constituent Gordon’s daily act of remembrance is keeping his brother’s letter close to his heart for nearly 80 years. In closing, I put on record my deepest gratitude to all those in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages who have served and continue to serve, and I finish by reflecting on how we might all turn an annual pause into a daily action.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am afraid I have to carry on. Unless we equip our first Labour rural metro mayor in York and North Yorkshire with the economic firepower to deliver better buses and trains, we not only limit the opportunity for towns like Scarborough to contribute to economic growth, but risk failing to break down barriers to opportunity in coastal communities.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  To grow our economy, we need good connectivity. In coastal communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, we are struck in the slow lane. Scarborough, with its heritage, culture and captivating coastline, is a popular tourist destination, attracting 3.9 million visitors last year. The train from Scarborough to York is an essential transport link for visitors as well as commuters, but with only one service an hour, opportunity and growth are being choked off. We need a twice-hourly service. This proposal is backed by York and North Yorkshire Mayor David Skaith, local businesses, my constituents and Lord Blunkett, who listed the service increase as one of his rail priorities in his report, “Yorkshire’s Plan for Rail”, published this year. Scarborough’s wonderful Stephen Joseph theatre has supported calls for a twice-hourly service, stating that audience members leave performances early to catch their train. Rather like its latest production, “Noises Off”, this is a farce. We have businesses in Scarborough and nearby Seamer that are looking to attract more employees, but with such an irregular service, these opportunities are simply out of reach for many people. We have enough platforms and enough demand for a more regular rail service. The operator, TransPennine Express, says that one of the barriers to providing a twice-hourly service is a shortage of drivers. It insists that it must train its own drivers on its own routes. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the issue of train drivers in his closing remarks, and say whether he is exploring new ways to ensure that the local need for drivers is met. I welcome the news that York and North Yorkshire combined authority will receive £94 million in local transport grant capital funding over the next four years. However, the combined authority, which covers a huge geographical area, is not part of the transport for city regions, so its settlement is not nearly as large as that of most combined authorities.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them. I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities. This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one. DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future. A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care. This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Joint Tenancies · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on protecting domestic abuse victims from the perpetrators of that abuse with whom they share a joint tenancy.