Helen Whately MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady asks about something that I have never said, so I was surprised to hear it.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make a little progress and then I will be delighted to take more interventions from colleagues. The Chancellor has previously argued that winter fuel payments should be means-tested and cut for the richest pensioners, but who here thinks that someone on an income of £11,500 is rich? Age UK estimated that over 80% of pensioners living below or only just above the poverty line would lose their winter fuel payment. The issue is not just that low-income vulnerable pensioners miss out on help with their heating because they are just above the pension credit threshold—the problem is worse than that. Last summer, the Government knew that over 800,000 people may be eligible for pension credit but did not claim it, meaning that they, too, would miss out on the winter fuel payment. The Pensions Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), assured us that the Government would get on top of that. In fact, she told us that her target was to have 100% of those eligible for pension credit claiming it. But here we are many months later, and still around three quarters of a million eligible pensioners are not on pension credit. That is another promise easily made but easily broken. There has been a woeful failure by the Government to close properly that gap, despite all the coverage the winter fuel payment received. Of course, we knew that this would be hard. We, too, had pension credit uptake campaigns in Government. More people signed up, but still many did not. I expect the Government knew that they would fail, too. Their officials would have told them, but it was easier for them to assure the press, the charities and their Back Benchers, “Don’t worry,” just as we have heard their Ministers do about the welfare reforms in the last 24 hours. For them, it was easier to wait for the spring to come and hope that everyone would simply forget. Well I say to them, “We won’t let you forget.” Nor will millions of pensioners and their families: 10 million pensioners are missing out on help with their heating, among them around 1 million of the most vulnerable people in our country, quite literally left in the cold by this Labour Government. That will not be forgotten in a hurry.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. She and I agree on one thing: the welfare bill is too high. Left unchecked, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. Spending more on sickness benefits than we do on defence is not the sign of a strong country. This is not just a question of money. We have 3 million people of working-age who are not in work due to ill health, not filling the roles businesses need, not contributing to our economy and not fulfilling their own potential. The best way to get the welfare bill down is to get people off benefits and into work. That is what we did year after year after taking office in 2010. Despite the once-in-a-century pandemic, 4 million more people were in employment when we left office than when we inherited Labour’s mess. Before the pandemic, economic inactivity was at an historic low, but it is true that we then started to see a new phenomenon: growing numbers of people, and—particularly worryingly—young people, claiming sickness benefits. A system set up with good intentions to protect the most vulnerable in society has over time morphed into something broader, driven in part by a well-intentioned but not always helpful medicalisation of life’s ups and downs. In government, we identified the problem and worked up plans to tackle it, but at every point Labour Members opposed them. In fact, the now Chancellor said that not one single penny could be saved from benefits. When they came into office, not only did they cancel or delay pretty much everything we handed over, but they had no plans of their own. They walked into the Department with empty notebooks. All they had done in opposition was oppose, instead of the hard work of coming up with their own answers. That is why the country has had to wait another eight months for this announcement. In that time, taxpayers have shelled out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, and nearly half a million people have been signed off sick. In fact, 60 people were signed on to sickness benefits while the Secretary of State was talking. None the less, I have been looking forward to hearing what the right hon. Lady would announce today and which of the many things briefed to the media her spinning policy wheel would eventually land on. Governing is hard—we know that. In the last few weeks, the Government have made it look really hard, but that is nothing compared with how hard life can be for a severely disabled person, somebody for whom getting up, getting dressed and getting breakfast—things most of us found easy this morning—are hard if not impossible. For some people, the last few weeks have been deeply frightening. They will be glad of the uncertainty finally ending. I genuinely want the right hon. Lady to succeed, and I welcome her commitment today to increasing the number of reassessments and to having more of them face to face and recorded. I welcome the investment in employment support for disabled people. I welcome, of course, her reannouncing a host of things that we were doing in government. Scrapping the work capability assessment and creating a single assessment is already Government policy that is due to come in in 2026-27. Her big idea seems to be to delay that until 2028. Merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited higher rate is a proposal that we worked up in government. We launched a consultation on tightening up eligibility for PIP and, by the way, we would have gone much further with that. We consulted on ending reassessments for people whose health conditions will not improve, and the right to try guarantee sounds remarkably similar to our chance to work guarantee. Of course, on the Secretary of State’s continued support for WorkWell, I launched that programme with the now shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). In fact, the only original idea I can see in the entire announcement is increasing the rate of unemployment benefits—a Labour policy if ever I have heard one. This is a now-or-never chance to seize the moment—a now or never for millions of people who will otherwise be signed off for what could end up being a lifetime on benefits—but today’s announcement leaves me with more questions than answers. How many people will be helped back into work and by when? Surely we have not been waiting eight months for just another Green Paper. Where is the fit note reform crucial to stem the flow of people on to benefits? Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Why is the right hon. Lady planning to save only £5 billion when the bill is forecast to rise to over £100 billion? Do the savings she is announcing today include the £5 billion we had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, she has made virtually no savings of her own. What is the net saving given the additional expenditure planned? Fundamentally, this is too little, too late. The fact is that £5 billion just does not cut it with a bill so big going up so fast. She needed to be tougher. She should be saying, “No more hard-working taxpayers funding the family next-door not to work, no free top-of-the-range cars for people who do not need them, no more sickfluencers helping people to claim money they do not need.” Before the right hon. Lady puts on her angry voice and leans across the Dispatch Box to shout at me about “14 years”, I gently say to her that everybody in this Chamber and around the country knows that we lost and Labour won. Her job now is to govern and mine is to hold her to account. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. It is good for the taxpayer, good for the economy and good for the individual and their family, who benefit from security, dignity and purpose that work brings, and it means that those who genuinely cannot work get the support that they deserve. The fact is that fewer people work under Labour. That has happened every time Labour has been in office, and it is already happening now. The Government should have taken their time in opposition to come up with meaningful reforms, but they did not, and the country is already paying the price.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I listened hard to the right hon. Lady’s answer but, given everything I heard, I still do not think she has the support of Cabinet colleagues, with less than 24 hours to go. It was a no. There is never a good time for millions of people to be out of work, but as the world gets more dangerous we can afford neither the benefits bill nor the waste of human potential. Given the opposition of the right hon. Lady’s party to welfare reform, can she assure me that her planned reforms will grasp the nettle and bring the benefits bill down?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We heard yesterday that the Cabinet had not yet seen the welfare plan that the right hon. Lady is apparently due to announce tomorrow. Given all the media briefings, the apprehension of disabled people and the growing number of people not working, none of us would want to see that delayed. Can she assure us that she has got collective agreement so that she can announce her plan here in this Chamber tomorrow?

• 17 Mar 2025 · NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I asked about what has happened “since” the right hon. Lady’s party has been in government: it is her Chancellor’s tax on jobs and economic mismanagement that are costing young people opportunities. Instead of taxing jobs, Labour should have been ready with a plan for welfare reform at the time of the Budget. They have spent nine months trying to cobble one together and still we wait. Why did the right hon. Lady not make any plans in opposition, and does she regret that?

• 17 Mar 2025 · NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Back in the autumn, the right hon. Lady said “we will not allow young people not to be in education, employment or training.” How is it possible then that since Labour has been in office there are 100,000 more young people in exactly that situation?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment: Pensioner Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place. I have a simple question for him: how many people are still waiting for their winter fuel payment?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment: Pensioner Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  So the answer is that the Minister does not know. He does not know how many people are waiting for their winter fuel payment. He does not know how many people are stuck in the pension credit backlog. He does not know when they will hear about their claims. He does not know who has had help from their local council. He does not know how many people who lost their winter fuel payment have ended up in hospital this winter. He and his Department have dodged or refused to answer every single one of those questions in recent weeks. Will he commit to a full review of the winter fuel payment cut so that we can get those answers?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A strongly held Conservative principle is that public money must not be wasted. We hold this view not because we are mean, but because the Government do not have money of their own. What they have, they raise through taxation from all of us. A tiny fraction of every penny that they spend is yours, mine and everyone else’s who pays in. Those who spend public money have a duty to spend it wisely, and ensure that it ends up only with those who should have it, for the purpose for which it was intended. In a big, complex system of government in a country of nearly 70 million people, from time to time that will not happen for a range of reasons—from a form that has been accidentally filled in with the wrong information, or a change of circumstance that someone forgot to notify the jobcentre about, to serious organised fraud—but however taxpayers have lost out, it is incumbent on the state to do all that it can to get their money back. That is what taxpayers rightly expect. It is part of the unwritten contract for collecting that money in the first place. Therefore, it will be no surprise to hear that, in principle, we support the Bill’s aim. In fact, much of the Bill continues work that we did in government, and legislation that was interrupted by the election. It is important to put what we are discussing today in context. Before the pandemic, fraud and error across the DWP benefits and tax credit system was at a near record low, but then we had two national crises—first, the pandemic, then war in Ukraine—which piled huge cost of living pressures on families across the UK. During both, we acted rapidly. We set up never-seen-before systems of support in record time. We protected millions of people’s jobs. We paid half of everyone’s energy bills for a year. We got direct payments to the people who needed them the most. I am proud of what we did, and I think that history will look back kindly on how we supported people through those times, but the truth is that when we do something fast at a moment of crisis, that inevitably opens up new vulnerabilities in the system. Disappointingly, against a national spirit of getting through hard times together, some people saw it as a chance to make a quick buck, and we saw a material increase in the amount being lost to fraud within the system. Any and all of us could spell out better uses for that money. That is why, back in May 2022, we published our plan, “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System”. We increased the number of frontline counter-fraud professionals in the DWP, created a new Public Sector Fraud Authority and started work on new legal powers to investigate and punish fraudsters. It was a good start. In 2022-23, fraud and error were cut by 10%. We saved £1 billion through the Department’s dedicated counter-fraud activities. The next year we upped that to £1.35 billion, exceeding the £1.3 billion target, yet we were still not satisfied. In May last year, we published a second fraud plan to save £9 billion by 2027-28, which included hiring more staff to check claims for accuracy, modernising information-gathering powers, broadening the penalty system and investing £70 million in advanced data analytics. In April, we announced plans for a new fraud Bill to align DWP investigations with HMRC, treating benefit fraud like tax fraud and giving investigators new powers to make seizures and arrests. When the general election was called, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill had already passed through the House of Commons. The Bill included the powers the Government are introducing today to require third parties, such as banks, to provide relevant information to the DWP. To the extent that this Bill continues that work, I do not envisage substantial disagreement—albeit we have questions on how the law will work in practice. I also have serious concerns about the powers that the Cabinet Office is giving itself. Before I deal with those, let me say that I recognise the concerns that people have about the state getting too much information about their finances. Privacy should never be taken lightly. I do not want to live in a country where the Government can access our bank accounts and look at what we have been spending our money on, and I would not support a Bill that would allow the Government to do that, but I believe that it is right for the DWP to learn lessons from HMRC to recoup taxpayers’ money. The fact of the matter is that if someone receives money from the state, it is not unreasonable for the state to investigate if there are signs they are taking money that they should not be. As I said, I have some questions about how the social security powers in the Bill will be put into practice, and I expect to probe those matters further as the Bill progresses. For instance, on the role of banks, how much testing has been done of the systems that they expect to use? The Horizon scandal is a recent reminder of how computer systems do not always get it right. What progress has been made on the code of conduct, and when will we see it? I also note that no impact assessment has been done on the cost to banks. Has the Minister met the sector and discussed what the changes mean for it? I know there are concerns within the sector about the lack of detail brought forward by the DWP. If the maximum level of scrutiny allowed under the Bill is demanded by the DWP, how would that work in practice for banks and what would it cost? On the sanctions that can be meted out under the Bill, we support the Department for Work and Pensions being given further powers to pursue recovery outside of benefits and PAYE, but are the measures outlined in the Bill tough enough? Why is 40% the maximum amount of someone’s capital that can be reclaimed? Allowing for hardship, which the Bill does, why should someone potentially keep the majority of their ill-gotten gains? It is not clear how the Bill intends to treat carer’s allowance overpayments, which I know from my time as Care Minister are complicated and often accidental, though unfortunately not always. None the less, they are a loss to the taxpayer that should be investigated. We would like to understand in more detail how the savings we are told to expect from the Bill will accrue. How many people does the Government think that will affect, and what proportion is it of the fraud currently being perpetrated? I was concerned the other day to see reports in the media of a number of artificial intelligence schemes being quietly shelved in the Department. It is noticeable that the plans rely heavily on human labour to root out fraud. While I know the Government have to create jobs somehow, I would be interested to hear what consideration has been given to automating some of the processes in future. That too will help ensure that taxpayers’ money does not go to waste. I come to my main area of concern, which is the powers being given to Cabinet Office Ministers and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. I know what it is like to make legislation thinking that I, as a good person, would only use it wisely, but I also know what it is like to be wrongly investigated by a public authority on the grounds of a misleading newspaper article. Looking at the investigatory powers bestowed in chapter 2 of the Bill, how could one not be worried to see a Minister being given powers, with little oversight, to compel a person to release whatever information they wish, in any format demanded, within 10 days, along with the information of anyone connected to them, on any grounds that the Minister deems “reasonable”—and to disclose that information to whomever they think necessary, with the sole right of appeal being only to that Minister? It could be impossible for someone to comply within the timeframe given, yet the Bill includes fines set at £300 a day for missing the deadline. Of course the Government should go after fraudsters, but I worry that some of that power could be abused and that, in its current form, it may breach laws on the state taking someone’s property without due process. I would be interested to hear if experts in the legal sector have been consulted on the legislation as drafted. Have Ministers engaged with the Law Society, the Bar Council or, for that matter, organisations like Liberty and Justice? In the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office, it is right to pursue fraudsters with the full might of the law, but the ends cannot justify all means and the process must always be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I look forward to further discussions on the detail of the Bill, and I am sure that colleagues in the other place will be preparing for that, too. In the meantime, we must not let the Bill distract from the elephant in the room. For every penny the Bill will save—welcome though that is—it will do nothing about the billions of pounds that will be racked up in sickness benefits under this Labour Government. It is staggering that they did not come into office with a plan. They have done nothing to halt the tide in the seven months they have been in office, and I hear that they have shelved some of the work we handed over. We have heard not a murmur about what they will actually do, just briefing after briefing to the papers. Why not bring an actual plan to Parliament rather than talking to the papers? I suspect you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might agree with me on that point. We had a plan—where is theirs? Every day the Government scramble about without a plan costs taxpayers millions. Fraud and error in the system is a problem, and I am pleased to pledge the Opposition’s support for tackling them, but let us not use this Bill as a distraction from the big issue. We all agree that the welfare system needs reform. Let us end the briefings and have some action.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the right hon. Lady described herself as the HR manager for the Government’s growth plan, so can Liz from HR tell me which of her colleagues should be fired for the addition of 47,000 people to the unemployment figures in December?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Wishful thinking is all very well, but let us talk about the facts. Those 47,000 people probably spent Christmas worrying about how they would pay the bills without a job, and they are now looking for work in an employment market decimated by Labour’s jobs tax. How high does the right hon. Lady forecast unemployment will get under her Government?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. In government, we were working flat out to tackle that problem. We were changing how we assess people’s capability for work, recognising that the world of work has changed. We developed WorkWell to help people with health conditions or disabilities find and stay in work, and we were reforming the fit notes that GPs give people. Once again, we were opposed by Labour every step of the way. We also had plans to go further. In our manifesto, we committed to £12 billion-worth of savings by reforming sickness benefits. Labour responded at the time by saying that the money is simply not there, and the present Chancellor said that not a single penny could be saved from welfare. It turns out that, on this one occasion, Labour has stuck to its word: it has no plans to control welfare spending. Today, the Government are setting a welfare cap that does not include a penny’s worth of savings at a staggering £195 billion by 2029-30—a 44% increase on this year’s cap. In cash terms, that is more than our entire defence budget. Not content with not saving a single penny, they have given themselves a £10 billion buffer on top of that. That lack of ambition is terrifying. We believe that money can and should be saved from the welfare bill. The Chancellor finally seems to agree with us, because she has been busy briefing the papers in a panic about cutting spending. But where are those plans? Unfortunately, she has not got any because, as I said, until now she did not believe any savings could be made. Perhaps the Employment Minister can give us some clues. I believe she has canned my fit note reforms, so what will she do to get the welfare bill down and by when? How on earth does she expect to get people into work when 50,000 people were added to the unemployment figures in December alone?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard, I was just acknowledging the fact that the economic inactivity rate started going up in the run-up to and particularly following the pandemic. We have a particular concern, which I am sure the Government share, around growing inactivity among young people. It is a challenge that we are experiencing more than other countries, and there is a lot of work to do to get to the bottom of it. I was involved in that work in government as a Health Minister, and it is imperative that the new Government get a grip on that issue.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will know—at least I think she will know—that the vast majority of what she set out in the White Paper was the continuation of things we were doing in government. In fact, if she has read it she will see that it even says that the youth guarantee is essentially a new name for a repackaged set of measures that are already in place. That is literally in the White Paper. I am happy to follow up with her afterwards on the page that she will find that phrase on. I have yet to see a single sign to suggest that this Government can tackle the welfare bill, and the cap they are setting today tells us that they agree. The Opposition will support efforts to bring down welfare costs sensibly. We need a compassionate safety net, but that net should never become a trap. If the Government do not get a grip of the problem, it will put our entire social contract at risk. Ministers have finally twigged that action is required—a Green Paper is, they say, on its way. I urge the hon. Lady to get on with it, because each month that passes see thousands more drift out of work and into a life of inactivity.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  The welfare cap we are debating today was introduced back in 2014 by the Conservative Chancellor at the time, George Osborne, to hold the Government to account on the cost of our welfare system. Through the 2010s, in government, we broadly kept to that cap; it was part of the discipline we applied to the welfare system to make it fair for the taxpayer and to put into practice the strongly held Conservative principle that if you can work, you should work. We introduced universal credit to ensure that work always pays and supported businesses to create millions of jobs, and we helped thousands of people into work and drove down economic inactivity—and were opposed at every step of the way by the Labour party. But in the years during and since the pandemic—I will not shy away from telling the truth—things changed. While the number of jobs kept going up, the number of people economically inactive also started to go up, and with that, the welfare bill, and that is a big problem. It is a financial problem that means we are today debating a welfare cap which has been breached. It is an economic problem because our economy needs the talents and energies of everyone. And it is a social problem: of the 9 million people of working age defined as economically inactive, 2.8 million are not working because of ill health. That includes growing numbers of young people. Young people are starting out on a life on benefits instead of starting out on a career, missing out on the opportunities that work brings—the sense of purpose, the connections with other people, the chance to learn and develop skills—missing out on the experience of being paid for their efforts, and missing out on the chance to build financial independence and security. We as a country have a moral and financial imperative to turn this around and in government we were working flat out to tackle it.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for advance sight of her statement, and I thank the ombudsman and his team for their work on this important matter. In March this year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its final report into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. The report took over five years to produce and reflects the complexity of the issue. It spans a 30-year period across different Governments, dating back to Parliament’s decision in 1995 for the state pension age for men and women to be equalised, in a long-overdue move towards gender equality. As the chief executive of the ombudsman set out, the Department for Work and Pensions fully co-operated with the ombudsman through its investigation and provided thousands of pages of detailed evidence to support it. It is because we took the work of the ombudsman so seriously that it was right for the Government to fully and properly consider the findings, and we were committed to working with Parliament to provide an appropriate and swift response. However, as the House will know, the general election was called less than two months later. Given that it has taken Labour five months since the general election to provide its findings, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that there was insufficient time to take a considered and fair decision between the publication of the report and the election. I am glad that the Secretary of State has picked this issue up since coming into office and has brought her statement to the House today. I will be considering it in more detail in the days and weeks to come, as well as the basis on which she has reached her conclusion. I am sure that the Government’s statement today will be a huge disappointment to WASPI women, and I recognise the strength of feeling about the issue. As a constituency MP, I have met WASPI women who live in Faversham and Mid Kent and heard their personal stories. No doubt campaigners will note the Government’s apology for the decisions made between 2005 and 2007 that led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters, which the ombudsman identified as “maladministration”. But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances. The country’s financial position now is a result of their political choices. They should not try to dodge responsibility by suggesting to WASPI women that, if times were different, they might have come to a different conclusion. Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just. That brings me to some questions. Given the announcement that they will not be providing financial compensation, will the Government put forward any other non-financial form of remedy for the women affected? Will the Secretary of State be involving the WASPI campaigners in the action plan she has referred to and what is the timeline for that? The Secretary of State claimed that pensioners are better off under Labour, but let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which has seen the state pension increase by £3,700 since 2010, and there are now 200,000 fewer pensioners living in absolute poverty. Does the right hon. Lady know how many women affected by her decision are on pension credit? Labour’s own impact assessment shows that its decision to scrap the winter fuel payment will see 5.2 million women lose out. How many of those hit by those cuts to the winter fuel payment are also affected by today’s announcement? Finally, given that the Government have dismissed the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, will the Secretary of State set out what implications she sees for the future of the ombudsman?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  How many people who should get the winter fuel payment will get it this winter?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady simply will not give a straight answer. She will not tell the House what she knows; she knew that the Government’s choices would push 100,000 pensioners into poverty and she did not tell the House that, either. Let us try this question instead. The Government’s own figures show that pensioners applying now will have to wait until the spring to find out whether they will get winter fuel money. What is her advice to a pensioner sitting in the cold and wondering if they can afford to turn on their heating this Christmas?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Budget 2024: Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  In the run-up to the election, Labour clearly committed to an employment rate target of 80%, but in the past few weeks I have noticed a shift in language from “target” to “ambition”. Will the Minister clear this up for us: are the Government still committed to the 80% employment target, or will that be another broken Labour promise?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Budget 2024: Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I think we all heard that loud and clear: Labour has ditched its employment target. That is already another broken Labour promise. However, I feel for the Minister. How can she be expected to boost employment when her Chancellor is busy taxing jobs and then shrinking the economy? The Government have destroyed business confidence, have put up taxes on jobs, and are piling red tape on employers. Which of those measures will help her to deliver that employment “ambition”?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Disability History Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate during Disability History Month. As someone with a disability herself, she will likely know that everyday life can be so much harder for those with a disability than for those of us fortunate to be able to take our health more or less for granted. Before I was elected to Parliament, I had an inspirational colleague who had suffered a spinal injury that left her unable to walk. Our jobs were demanding—a 70-hour week was not uncommon—and somehow my colleague managed to do the work, and do it brilliantly, despite all the extra challenges of life in a wheelchair, including the difficulty of getting to and from work and navigating inaccessible buildings, and all the extra effort it takes to do the everyday things that so many of us do without thinking, like getting dressed or taking a shower. Working alongside her made me realise the importance of the things that we have done to help disabled people over the years, like making buildings and transport more accessible. I also saw the consequences of people failing to give any thought to those needs: for example, by using disabled toilets as storage cupboards, or leaving them locked so that people have to go on a mission to find the key—a mission that is doubly hard for someone in a wheelchair. My colleague’s disability was obvious, but we should be sure to remember people whose disabilities are hidden and not to underestimate the difficulty that such disabilities can add to life. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) said with great insight that in this job it is the first time her hearing loss has felt like an advantage as she uses her platform as an MP to advocate for others. She argued powerfully for disabled people to be able to access not just a job but a career. Alongside talking about the challenges, this Disability History Month is a chance to reflect on pivotal moments of progress for disabled people and to celebrate the individual heroes who picked up the cause and made the running—metaphorically and sometimes in practice. If we cast our minds back, for instance, to summer 2012, right here in London the international bar was raised and a new standard was set for what disabled people could imagine achieving. More than 4,000 para-athletes from 164 countries competed with everything they had in front of a physical audience of 2.7 million people. It was watched on 3.8 billion television screens around the world, with record- breaking audiences, including a record number of young people growing up with a disability who were waking up each day and thinking, “If I put my mind to it, that could be me.” We in this country made a leap forward at that moment, and as we did so, we led the world. The message is repeated at every Paralympic games: never underestimate what someone with a disability can do. That brings me to disability employment. The Government should recognise the challenges that disabled people face, but must not dissuade anyone of their ability to overcome them. On the contrary, the Government must lean into the barriers to employment and help to knock them aside. On that my party has a strong track record. As a new Back Bencher, I remember being encouraged by a passionate disabilities Minister at the time, Justin Tomlinson, to get involved in our Disability Confident programme to get employers across the country to think differently about disabilities. In 2017 we set a target to get a million more disabled people into work by 2027, and we met that target five years early; there are now 5.5 million disabled people in work. We took practical steps to achieve that, including working with employers, as I mentioned; funding Access to Work, which helped more than 67,000 people in 2023-24; launching universal support to give personalised support to long-term sick and disabled people to find and stay in work; and providing supported internships for people with special educational needs. Those are just a few examples. I am a firm believer that work is the best way to improve our standard of living, as well as giving us the satisfaction of a job well done—a view that I am sure is shared by many, if not all, hon. Members present, and also argued for compellingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in his extremely well-informed speech. The question is not whether someone can work, but what work they can do and how. If a person with disabilities needs help to work, where does that help come from? Often it comes from family, community, charities—as hon. Members have referred to today, which often have deep expertise—volunteers who give their time and compassion, and, as I have set out, the Government. The Government’s resources must be targeted. Since the pandemic, we all know that the number of people who are economically inactive due to ill health has surged, reaching 2.8 million people. Apart from the cost, that is a waste of talent and potential. That is why, when the Conservatives were in government, we embarked on reforms to help people to stay in work or get back to work—reforms to fit notes, the launch of WorkWell, the launch of universal support, and our work with employers. We reformed welfare to make sure that financial incentives did not get in the way of work. I welcome the Government taking forward many of those reforms, but I believe they have made a grave error in kicking the can down the road on the accompanying benefit reforms. Every day that someone who could work is getting money from benefits instead is money that could help a disabled person to live their life to the full. As I conclude I will return to history, given the topic of the debate. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which was introduced in response to the second world war, as the hon. Member for Thurrock said, laid the path for disability legislation and protections for the next 80 years. We live in a different era, but our welfare system is built on the vision of our predecessors who were determined to make sure that soldiers who were wounded defending our freedom would be supported on their return home. When the Conservatives were in government, we put our shoulder to the wheel to make our welfare system fit for the 21st century. We made progress, but there is much more to do. Every hon. Member who has spoken today has made important suggestions. This Disability History Month is a chance to send an emphatic message of encouragement to people with disabilities across the whole United Kingdom. We know how hard every day can be, but let there be no limits to what they can achieve.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Cleve Hill Solar Park · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue is clearly of great concern to my constituents in the village of Graveney and the nearby town of Faversham, who are living close to the solar plant and the battery installation. We need to get it right in Graveney, and then we can use the same approach to get it right in other places, because this is not the one and only large-scale battery installation we expect to see. As I have said, these installations are likely to be part of our future energy infrastructure, so we must get it right in Graveney and across the country. The second area of concern, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is the impact of construction on local residents and, in my constituency, on the village of Graveney itself. Residents and schools have put up with many months of heavy construction traffic. It is down to the hard work of the community and people such as Mike Newman, the parish council chair, sitting down with the developer, that we now have an effective traffic management plan. That has mitigated the impact, and I recognise that the developer has played its part—for instance, by restricting lorry movements at certain times to accommodate the school—but even when construction ends, residents will be left with the consequences. Some houses have cracks in their walls thanks to the huge lorries thundering past day after day, and the lane through the village will need resurfacing. The community is looking to the developer and hoping that it will stick to its word and make good any damage, but the worry hangs over the village all the same, not least because no such requirement was part of the planning process, and nor is it set out in law. That brings me to the final outstanding concern. When an unpopular planning decision is made locally, there is at least the silver lining of a section 106, or a community infrastructure levy contribution, which can go towards a new school, a GP surgery or a similar community facility, but not so with a nationally significant infrastructure project. I know that one of our challenges as a country is the time and cost required to build any new infrastructure, and I have no appetite to make that worse, but it is hard to stomach the fact that a small village such as Graveney could find itself hosting a power station, in effect, and have nothing by way of compensation. I am grateful to the developer for indicating that it will make a significant community contribution, and I know there is a discussion about the potential for a longer-lasting approach that could support the community over the lifetime of the project, as an alternative to a one-off. However, that begs the question of why the community is left relying on the good will of the developer. The Minister’s Government intend a big overhaul of the planning process, with the objective, rightly, of ensuring that we get better at building infrastructure. I suggest that one way to do that is to ensure that there is something in it for the local community, especially when, as is the case here, it bears the brunt, with no discernible local benefit. I will sum up to give the Minister time to reply. With regret, I accept the reality of Cleve Hill solar, the UK’s largest solar installation, and the large-scale battery storage that comes with it. What I do not accept is the failure to address residents’ concerns about safety, the failure to give residents certainty about repairing the damage from construction, and the feeling that the community is on its own, negotiating compensation from the developer for the industrialisation of the marshland it holds so dear. On all three counts, I seek the Minister’s assurance and action. To be clear, I am not advocating more red tape. This is about doing something better, not making it harder. If we get this right, we can improve how we build energy infrastructure in this country. That is important because we need more renewable energy generation capacity to meet our future energy needs, in a world where economic growth is likely to be dependent on energy-intensive computing power. All our futures depend on that, so let us ensure that we get it right, starting right here, right now, with Cleve Hill solar.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Cleve Hill Solar Park · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of Cleve Hill Solar Park on communities in Faversham and Mid Kent constituency. For centuries, the view from Graveney church tower has been spectacular, looking across miles of marshland to the Swale beyond. In the summer, there are wide-open blue skies and sheep grazing in the sunshine among the rushes going down to the sparkling water of the estuary. In the winter, still beautiful if bleak, there are clouds scudding across a grey horizon, down to the froth of white horses on galloping waves, accompanied by the cries of seabirds, calling as they circle overhead, buffeted by wind and rain. This epic landscape inspired great British writers such as Charles Dickens and Daniel Defoe. Since then, it has continued to inspire countless visitors and locals alike—the backdrop for walkers travelling the ancient Saxon Shore way, a haven for birdwatchers and the seabirds they have travelled to see, or just a place to find peace and tranquillity in our otherwise busy lives. But no more. In 2020, planning permission was granted to build Cleve Hill solar park. In 2021, the park was acquired by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a US investment fund based in Texas. In 2023, construction began. Now, as we near the end of 2024, the work is nearly done. Soon, the village of Graveney in my constituency will host the UK’s largest solar power plant, generating 373 MW of electricity. Alongside the solar array, the developers have permission for a large-scale battery installation, with up to 700 MWh of capacity. The concrete base for the batteries is being constructed, and the batteries themselves are now in the country, soon to be installed. The plant is set to become operational early next year. As I speak about this huge solar installation in my constituency, hon. Members should make no mistake: I recognise climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and way of life. I want us to continue our shift to renewable energy, reduce our carbon footprint and improve our energy security, and that includes solar. I welcome solar on factory and warehouse roofs, housing developments, brownfield sites and even out-of-the-way pockets of poor-quality land. But Cleve Hill is altogether different. When complete, the solar park will cover more than 700 acres—an area larger than the town of Faversham itself. It will have not far off 1 million solar panels, each the height of a double-decker bus. No amount of natural screening can prevent this huge installation from dominating the landscape. It is not just about the views. The marshes were home to rare species, including Brent geese, golden plover, marsh harriers and the red-listed lapwing. The humble dormouse and water voles also thrived in the dykes and field margins. Before the Cleve Hill solar team arrived, there was a totally different vision for this spot. The Environment Agency planned to restore the marshes to a wetland, which would have provided a haven for the wildlife, sequestered carbon and acted as a natural flood defence. As someone who has stood knee-high in flood water in my own home, I do not take the risk of flooding lightly. As many as 17,000 homes are at risk from rising sea levels along the north Kent coast. Unfortunately, the planning inspector considered the solar development only against the agriculture land use at the time. Instead of Graveney’s marshland being transformed into a haven for nature and a release for rising sea water, it has been transformed into an industrial zone. Over the years since the solar scheme was announced, I have received hundreds of letters and emails from people asking me to stop it. I have worked with Graveney’s excellent parish council, the Save Graveney Marshes campaign group and the GREAT campaign. All have worked hard to give the community a voice in the planning system, but to no avail. As a nationally significant infrastructure project, the final decision was taken away from local residents and our local council. I am told that when planning inspectors recommended that the development go ahead, there was little room for the Secretary of State to go against their recommendation, even though only 15 out of 867 public representations supported the project. Like many people, I was gutted when it was approved but we are where we are. Since then, my focus, like the campaign groups, has switched to trying to reduce the harm and risks to the local community, and trying to claw back some benefit. That is why I have secured this debate. I am here to raise the three main areas of concern expressed by my constituents: safety, disruption and damage, and compensation for the community, who now have an industrial site on their rural doorstep. This is important to my constituents, but important to communities around the country facing large-scale solar developments; they, too, will want to hear what reassurances the Minister can offer.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Cleve Hill Solar Park · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will address in a moment. First, I want to talk about safety, because the safety of the large-scale battery installation is the biggest worry for my community. To give a sense of the scale, Cleve Hill’s battery capacity will be equivalent to half the output of a small gas-fired power station. Large-scale battery storage systems carry risks including overheating and fire, which can produce toxic fumes and water contamination. To date, more than 65 fires and explosions have been reported in similar battery storage systems across the world. In March, I hosted a public meeting about battery safety, which was attended by Matthew Deadman, an assistant director at Kent Fire and Rescue Service and the National Fire Chiefs Council lead officer for alternative fuel and energy systems. Almost 50 Graveney residents attended the meeting, which demonstrates the considerable local concern. Matthew Deadman provided some reassurance by outlining the steps that the developer is taking to put in place the safety features set out in the project’s battery safety management plan, but that has not allayed residents’ fears. Battery fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, and people at the meeting found it hard to believe that the fire and rescue team at Faversham fire station—fabulous though they are—or even teams across east Kent more widely, would have the specialist equipment required. There is also the question of the contamination of land and water in the event of a fire. Another outstanding concern was the lack of an evacuation plan in the event of a fire. The rationale we heard was that no evacuation would be needed, because toxic fumes and smoke would dissipate and it would be sufficient to close windows. However, residents and parents whose children attend the local school remain unconvinced. Added to that is the potential for a fivefold expansion of the battery proposal found in the site’s battery safety management plan. Although that may or may not happen in practice, physicist and former vice-chair of the Faversham Society, Professor Sir David Melville CBE, warns that the site does not have adequate space for such an increase in battery capacity while maintaining the 6-metre spacing between battery units that is advised by the National Fire Chiefs Council. In fact, the Kent Fire and Rescue Service was only satisfied with the site’s battery safety management plan on the basis of the 6-metre gap being adhered to. I am not alone in raising these concerns formally. Swale borough council scrutinised and rejected the battery safety management plan earlier this year, but its rejection has been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, leaving the community with unanswered questions and a feeling that they have no say in the matter. I am not the first Member to raise these concerns. Just over a year ago, a former Energy Minister said the Government intended to consult on including battery storage systems in the environmental permitting regulations at the earliest opportunity. I take that to be an acknowledgment that the current system is not up to the job. In a written question in September, I asked Ministers for an update on the timetable for the consultation, and I received the following response: “The Government agrees with the need to have robust measures in place to manage the risks associated with facilities that use large numbers of lithium-ion batteries. Defra is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fires at BESS sites.” When she sums up, will the Minister advise me whether the Government will be adding battery storage systems to the environmental permitting regulations? If so, when will the consultation take place? If not, what approach to ensuring the safety of large-scale batteries do the Government intend to take? In the meantime, could the Minister tell me what agency is responsible for ensuring the safety of this development? Who will be inspecting it before it is switched on, and how will she ensure that these batteries are safe? I have been in her shoes, albeit in a different brief, and that is a question I would have been asking myself. This issue is important not just for Graveney, but for the whole country. Large-scale batteries look likely to be an important part of our future energy infrastructure, which means we need to do this properly. Residents’ concerns cannot be brushed aside as an inconvenience. We need a proper process that takes these worries seriously and ensures that large-scale battery installations are safe.