Rebecca Long Bailey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has been a formidable campaigner for the women affected and an ally in the campaign in this House. He is correct. I will explain in a moment how unprecedented it is for a Government to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in this way, and how dangerous it is, in fact, for our democracy and for citizens’ ability to hold their Governments to account. I will turn back to the statistics that the Government relied on in their response to the ombudsman’s report. Instead of the clear findings that I have outlined, the Government relied on abstract figures from research carried out in 2004 and 2006 by the Department for Work and Pensions, which suggested that 73% and 90%, respectively, of women born in the 1950s knew that their own state pension age was increasing, but that is not correct. I must flag this with the Minister for clarity: the question asked in the surveys was crucial. It was, “Do you know that the broad state pension age is due to increase at some point in the future?”. It was not, “Do you know that your own state pension age is going to increase?”. It is wrong, in my view, to make the assertion that 73% and 90% of women knew that their state pension age was changing, because the facts prove that they simply did not. Next, when an ombudsman makes recommendations to Government, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has alluded to, the usual course of action is for the Government to accept them. Further, on this occasion, the ombudsman made the incredibly rare decision to lodge its report before Parliament, not before the Department for Work and Pensions, which it did because, based on its dealings with the DWP, it already feared and knew that the report would be ignored. It is clear that the ombudsman realised this was an important issue, and that it wanted Government to listen. There have been only eight other occasions where the ombudsman has felt the need to put down a special report in this way, the first being in 1978. All resulted in the full implementation of the recommendations save one, the Earl report. In that case, the Environment Agency still complied with three out of the four recommendations, and on the fourth implemented an alternative compensation offer. I cannot stress enough that the decision to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in full is unprecedented, and is, in fact, dangerous, as it sets a precedent that regardless of what an independent adjudicator recommends concerning state-level injustice, the Government can now ignore them. It strips away one of the only levers that citizens have to hold the Government of the time to account. All the amazing campaign groups that we in this House work with are clear: this has been a state injustice. It has caused significant harm to these women, and while welcome, a limited Government apology is, without any material redress, not acceptable for a grave injustice that has driven so many into debt or poverty.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is not. That is why I place so much hope in the Minister to take action on this. To conclude, there were two statements made by colleagues that stood out for me. The first was from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that in the name of decency, justice must be done. The Minister must recognise that, so I urge him to get round the table with the women and present a package before Parliament that we can all support and celebrate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we are not going to give up until justice is done, and neither are the women. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. She, too, is a fantastic advocate for the women in her constituency. These women should not be forced to go through lengthy court battles, and the Government must recognise the cost of having to undertake those court battles versus the amount that they would actually pay through a redress scheme. Ultimately, the court is likely to find in favour of these women based on the facts that we have been presented with as parliamentarians. Indeed, CEDAWinLAW and 1950s Women of Wales both strongly support a mediation route towards redress, via an early neutral evaluation of groups’ asks towards mediation with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions via mediators. More broadly, they raise concerns that discrimination needs to be factored into any redress mechanism, stating that the roll-out of state pension ages potentially conflicts with the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—CEDAW—treaty, which the UK signed in 1981. As such, the Government should implement a temporary special measure to guarantee an adequate, non-discriminatory pension.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is spot on. The women have suffered an injustice, and they have been ignored. They should not have had to fight for so long. The sad fact is that already so many women have died waiting to see justice. What will it take to fix this? Will it take an ITV drama to shine a light on what has happened before everybody gets angry enough to do something about it? I do not know the answer to that, but what I do know is that the facts are clear. Even the ombudsman’s report sets that out, and the Government need to act urgently. The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner in this House over the years. and I am sure the women are truly thankful for her support. The 1950s Women of Wales propose, in line with CEDAWinLAW, that redress could be an initial lump sum to allow swift financial relief, with additional payments over a five-year period. Even the previous Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee suggested a scheme. He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to suggest that a rules-based scheme be considered. The letter describes a system where payments are adjusted within a range, based on the ombudsman’s severity of injustice scale, to reflect the extent of change in the individual state pension age and the notice of the change the individual received. It would be quick to administer, he said, and inexpensive compared with a more bespoke scheme. He further suggested that there should also be flexibility for individuals to make a case for additional compensation for direct loss. And that Select Committee Chair is now a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions! Who knew? Perhaps the Minister could sit down and have a cup of tea with himself to discuss the plans he had before he entered office. Any scheme must be responsible and financially sustainable, so let us have a look at some options on that, too.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I want to thank the whole range of colleagues who have spoken today. It has been a fantastic collegiate debate that has shown the House at its best. For those outside of the Chamber who are watching, the campaign continues. It is a campaign that brings so many of us together, and there are so many formidable campaigners in this Chamber who need to be celebrated. I know that the Minister is in a difficult position, and I have a lot of time for him, as I say. I know that he is bound by the Government’s current position on this issue, but I want to pick up on some of the information he gave in his speech. He said that I referred to a piece of research from 2024, but it was actually from 2003, and it is research that the ombudsman itself relies on in saying that 43% of women did not know that the state pension age was increasing. The Minister again made the point about letters being ineffective, but he must understand that to people watching this debate, that is an absurd thing to say. I know that he says that DWP research states that, but the research is absurd and does not really have any basis in reality. I do not want the Minister to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s-born women— I honestly do not. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally managed to award these women justice. He has to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd to say the least. In fact, in denying the ombudsman’s report, the argument is akin to arguing that the world is flat.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice. Following last night’s horrific news, I just want to send my deepest condolences to the family of Diogo Jota and his brother, and to the city of Liverpool. I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of fearless women who have been campaigning relentlessly to secure justice on this matter for decades now, and to remember all those women who have died waiting for justice. My personal thanks go to the campaign groups who have provided briefings to the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, including CASPI, WASPI, WASPI 2018, CEDAWinLAW, Pension Partners 4 Justice, Pension United, WASPI Scotland and 1950s Women of Wales, as well as many individuals who have been in touch. My thanks also go to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and to numerous colleagues across the House who have been instrumental in campaigning for the women and in securing today’s debate. As Lord Bryn Davies, co-chair of the APPG and a pensions expert, stated: “The UK’s pension system was designed for men, by men. It systematically favoured men, with the result that they received higher state pensions and even higher private pensions. Hence, the gender pensions gap. The only feature that favoured women was that the National Insurance pension was paid to women from aged 60, whereas it was paid to men from aged 65.” But in 2010, that single advantage was taken away, without consultation and without regard to the other factors that meant women of that era were worse off financially and ended up with worse pensions. That was bad enough. What was worse, though, is that they were not even told about it. Many women were left destitute; some even lost their homes. These women were already disadvantaged and discriminated against. They began work in an era when it was legal to pay female workers less than men, and often stepped out of the workforce to raise families or look after loved ones because there was no wraparound care, losing out on not only paying stamps but paying into a private pension. Overnight, these disgraceful changes were dumped on them without their knowledge. Many had already handed in their notice at work, and in many cases they were forced to exist on meagre welfare benefits that left them living a hand-to-mouth existence. Hundreds of women began to raise the alarm. When the previous Government failed to take action, they escalated their complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which began a lengthy investigation spanning years, although it chose to focus on a sample of only six cases. Its report, published in March last year, uncovered internal Department for Work and Pensions memos from 2005 showing that officials knew that considerable numbers of women were unaware of the planned changes. While many women feel that the report did not go far enough on suggested redress, and that it was too limited in the cases that it assessed, it confirmed what the women already knew: that they had suffered injustice, that the DWP was guilty of maladministration in failing to properly communicate changes, and that redress was duly owed. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions responded to the report in December, there was genuine hope that the scandal would finally end—it was there, in black and white. Sadly, it did not, and women were left shocked and angry. While the Government agreed with the finding of maladministration and apologised, no redress would be forthcoming. Further, contrary to the ombudsman, they actually felt that the majority of women did know about changes to their pension age, based on Department for Work and Pensions research, and that sending the women letters would not have been effective, which I am sure most people would agree is bizarre. It is pretty effective when people receive a bill addressed to them through their door, or a letter about a hospital appointment. It is also pretty effective on the very rare but joyous occasion that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs gives people a tax rebate cheque. So, honestly, why would 1950s-born women have actively refused to open letters with their name on from the DWP? It makes no sense.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituents during her time in this House. I say in response that this issue unites the House; we are all angry about the injustice that these women have faced, and we want the Government to take action. Spanning various Governments and various Administrations, these women have had to fight relentlessly just for what they are owed, and that is not acceptable. I have no doubt that there are numerous colleagues at Cabinet level who agree with the women’s cause. They may be struggling to find options and answers, and that is what we are here today to provide. I hope that they are listened to and acted on, because injustice is injustice. If we are saying that victims of one injustice can be compensated by the Government, but that victims of another are not so deserving, we are travelling down a very dangerous path. There are options to cover the cost and ensure that there is no heavy administrative burden, and I will give a few of them. The ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedy sets out its suggestion at level four on the severity of injustice scale, and it estimates that such remedy would involve public spending of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion. Campaigners have suggested that an earlier stage—level five—was under consideration, and that would cost between £10 billion and £31 billion. In both cases, as Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton has highlighted, that recommendation and, indeed, any other scheme would not preclude tapering the amount paid, which would bring down costs considerably. WASPI and its sister campaigns suggest a bell curve model. They have highlighted the fact that other large compensation schemes for DWP maladministration have been viable, and proposed that any financial remedy could allocate the most compensation to those who have had the shortest notice of the longest delay to their state pension age—in other words, supporting those most heavily impacted in a bell curve model. They state that redress must be speedy, simple and sensitive, and they want to avoid legal action. They have asked the Government to enter into talks to address this very issue. The WASPI group proposes that this remedy could take the form of a one-off payment that fairly takes that into account, but that level four should not be a ceiling, given that not all circumstances are identical to the six sample claimants. WASPI Scotland has also highlighted how a scheme could be operated relatively easily, using DWP records of dates of birth or national insurance prefixes, on either an opt-in or an opt-out basis. That information is readily available and would not require complex application systems or the processing of such applications.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate for women in Northern Ireland. He is right: what has happened is wrong, plain and simple. We need to see action today. I promise I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not want to try your patience. There are options to make sure that schemes are financially sustainable. WASPI has calculated that HM Treasury has saved a whopping £181 billion by increasing the state pension age alone. Other options include applying a 1% to 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise up to £22 billion a year, or equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates, which would raise £15.2 billion a year. Applying national insurance to investment income would raise £8.6 billion a year. Ending stealth subsidies on banks could raise up to £55 billion over the next five years—something even Gordon Brown has advocated. Cost does not need to be, and should not be, a barrier to justice. In January the Deputy Ombudsman told the Work and Pensions Committee that the DWP at the time knew that the women did not know, and that they failed to act. He said: “if you accept this maladministration and you accept people were affected by that maladministration, there is a conversation about how you factor cost into the need to do justice.” The trauma, hardship, poverty and sheer stress that these women have been put through for a decade must make justice for them a matter of urgency. I have a lot of time for the Minister. I call on him to get round the table with these women and to listen to them. I ask him to listen to the evidence, put considerations of financial redress for 1950s-born women who have suffered back on the table and allow full and adequate parliamentary scrutiny for any proposal, as the ombudsman intended.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has been a formidable campaigner for these women. In answer to her question, no, I have not had any joyous information from the Government as of yet, which is why we are here today. I will outline why I think the Government’s statement and response to the ombudsman’s report was misinformed. While I understand the financial difficulties the Government face, options are available, and cost should never be a barrier to addressing injustice. Many of the campaign groups are clear that the statistics used by Government to justify no redress are misquoted and misinformed, painting a picture that is completely at odds with the experiences of thousands of impacted women, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has outlined, the ombudsman’s findings and the results of independent research. Research by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2003 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the changes knew that their state pension age was changing. The research itself even comments that: “This low figure provides cause for concern and shows that information about the increase in SPA is not reaching the group of individuals who arguably have the greatest need to be informed.” Independent research, including a focus group study by Age UK from as late as 2011, has also found that many women believed that they were still going to retire with a state pension at 60. Further, the ombudsman’s report also focused on the continued failure of the DWP to recognise and respond to this research and feedback. Indeed, this point was flagged by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2013 and the National Audit Office in 2016, but the DWP still failed to take any meaningful action.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion. He is a fantastic campaigner for 1950s women in Scotland and has done an enormous amount of work in this House to support their cause. As I said earlier, we all recognise the difficulties that the Government face. They inherited a difficult financial situation, but that is no excuse to deny these women justice. Financial options are available, some of which I shall outline, and some of which my colleagues will outline, too. As well as refuting the findings of the ombudsman, the Government cite cost and administrative burdens as barriers, but it is important to stress that there have been other large-scale compensation schemes created in response to DWP maladministration. The Equitable Life Compensation Scheme is a key example.

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

  More

  We all know the famous quote: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” It is a litmus test for the morality and integrity of our country’s values. In recent years, the United Nations has twice reported on the conditions for disabled people in the UK, finding that there were “grave and systematic violations” of human rights. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will worsen this situation. Despite concessions, and even excluding existing claimants, brutal cuts will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, sick and disabled people into poverty. Existing claimants will live in fear that if their situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system. Disabled children will look to the future with trepidation, knowing that in adulthood the support that would have helped them to live a full and fruitful life might not be there. I truly welcome the proposals to support with a little help those who could work, but according to the Learning and Work Institute, the number of people who will be helped is nominal, at between 1% and 3%—a finding echoed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which concludes that we might expect increases in employment in only the tens of thousands. Although the concessions made over the weekend are welcome, they create a two-tier system, as the amount of support that someone receives will now depend on when they made their claim. That is simply not fair, especially as those who require help need this support through no fault of their own. Yes, it is clear that our punitive and broken welfare system needs reform—it drives disabled people into poverty. However, there should have been proper consultation with those most directly affected in order to build a system that truly nurtures, but that has not happened. The Government should have published assessments on the impact of these updated proposals on the poverty of future claimants, those undergoing reassessments and their carers, but they have not. The Government should have assessed the knock-on impact on local authorities, the NHS and the charity sector and the scope for non-payment of household debts as people pushed into poverty desperately seek help elsewhere, but they have not. We are being asked today to vote on a Bill and rush it through without consultation or knowing the full picture, and that cannot be right. If this is about cost, I recognise the financial challenges facing the Government—challenges that are a direct result of 14 years of mismanagement and under-investment by the previous Government—but the sad thing is that there are alternatives. The Government could introduce higher taxes on extreme wealth, end the stealth subsidies for banks and tax gambling fairly and properly. The list of alternatives is endless. Every single disability organisation is against this brutal Bill. If we ignore them and say that it is okay to treat one group of people as lesser than another and okay to neglect the vulnerable, undermine their rights and dignity and push them into poverty, what does that honestly say about the true measure of our society? I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench: please pull back from the brink now, before it is too late, and withdraw this Bill.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Last night, “Newsnight” covered the Daily Mirror’s three-year investigation into the nuked blood scandal, in which thousands of troops had blood and urine monitored and even chest x-rays during nuclear weapons testing, but the results were kept from their medical records and their suffering was denied for decades. I am a fierce supporter of those men and their families, and the Deputy Prime Minister has met them with me, so does she agree that, in this Armed Forces Week, time is now of the essence, and these elderly veterans deserve answers, justice, and an apology?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate. I also thank Michael Wardle, who is a Royal Life Saving Society UK lifeguard, and his team at the Helly Hansen watersports centre in Salford for their dedication to saving lives in Salford. I had the pleasure of meeting them, and their passion for educating about water safety was inspiring. In Salford Quays, countless lives have tragically been lost as young people head to the water, unaware of the dangers within. It is a ship canal, so it is incredibly deep and littered with underwater obstacles. The area is now monitored by CCTV cameras and joint council and police patrols in hot weather. Under-18s caught jumping from bridges or illegally swimming will receive a police warning, and adults will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. But that still does not stop people crowding to the quays on days like today, looking to cool off or have fun with their friends. The sad thing is there are supervised open swimming areas in the quays—areas that can offer a safer swimming environment, but they are only open at limited times and are not free, which bars too many young people from them. There is one simple thing that the Government could do to ensure that my constituents are safe, and that would be to provide just a little funding to open up these supervised lifeguarded swim areas to the public for free and for longer during the summer months. That way no young person is tempted to risk their life in dangerous areas when they can have full access to a supervised one. Secondly, as we have heard, water safety education is critical. While it is a statutory requirement that children are able to swim 25 metres by the time they reach year 7, evidence sadly suggests that the number of children receiving swimming lessons is declining. In 2024, the Royal Life Saving Society estimated that over 140,000 children left primary school without these vital lifesaving skills. There are also inequalities in those statistics. Staggeringly, Sport England found that 50.4% of children from low-income families could swim 25 metres in year 7, compared with 85.8% of high-income families. Barriers to the statutory provision include limited pool access, transportation costs, logistics, staff shortages and cultural and religious barriers. It is critical that the Government secure water safety education on the national curriculum for England as a statutory requirement, but also that they ensure schools are provided with dedicated ringfenced budgets so they can meet that requirement. Thirdly, I would like to draw attention to a quite staggering fact. I met my local fire service in Salford recently and learnt of the amazing work its dedicated firefighters do to save lives and keep us safe. I met the water response team, which I thought—naively, like much of the general public—was just part of its service. It is not. They do it because they are good people, not because they are funded to or required to. While there is a public perception that the fire and rescue service is responsible for responding to water rescue incidents and engaging in water safety education and prevention, there is no statutory duty on it in England to do so. However, statutory duties do exist in Wales. The fire and rescue service responds to 999 calls and inland water rescue incidents using its existing general powers and resources. It scrimps and saves from existing budgets to try to resource the lifesaving equipment it needs, rather than that being allocated. As a result, the resource and the coverage are patchy, and firefighters often train in water safety on their own time. I call on the Government to urgently adopt the National Fire Chiefs Council recommendations on this issue: to consult on establishing a statutory responsibility in England for inland water rescue response and prevention; to provide capital alongside continuous funding to support any new statutory duty introduced; to establish a clear lead Department with accountability for water safety prevention, mirrored at local authority level; and to update the reporting requirements of the incident recording system to more accurately record water-related deaths and injuries. To conclude, no parent should ever receive that phone call and no person should ever needlessly lose their lives when the asks on Government are so simple. I hope the Government will do all they can to urgently implement the measures that I and others have outlined.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, 10,000 people are in receipt of PIP or the health element of universal credit, and they are frankly terrified. Already more than 6.3 million people with a disabled family member live in poverty, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the full impact of the Government’s measures could push an extra 400,000 people into poverty. It is also important to stress that, although the Government’s package of employment support is welcome, the number of people back in work will be nominal. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 1% to 3% of people who have their benefits cut will be helped back into work. While I recognise the dire financial situation that the Government inherited, balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable is not morally right when options such as taxing wealth more fairly are available. I should stress that that particular option has widespread public support, and indeed support from many millionaires themselves. I ask the Government to please do the right thing and scrap these cuts.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this important issue alongside Irish community groups here in the UK. As he will know, thousands of survivors left Ireland for Britain, with huge numbers of them settling in the north-west. They were scarred by the physical and emotional abuse that they had faced, but they were also disturbed by the ease with which powerful institutions could abuse their power without question. Does he agree that more needs to be done to reassure survivors that those administering the scheme will be trauma-informed and act solely in the interests of survivors, and that those who apply for compensation will suffer no detriment to their current entitlements?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today—it is the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty. I am sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it is right to lift children out of poverty, so can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Social Housing Supply · Hansard source

  More

  9. If she will take steps through the spending review to increase social housing supply.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Social Housing Supply · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to social and affordable housing. I know that she will be concerned by the new analysis by the National Housing Federation, which finds that local authorities in England with the most severe shortage of social housing now have waiting lists exceeding 100 years for a family-sized social home. With nearly 6,000 people on the waiting list in Salford alone, will she outline what support she will give local authorities and the social housing sector to deliver desperately needed social homes?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Disadvantaged Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for her impassioned speech, which I very much associate myself with. Salford is the 18th most deprived authority in England, and that deprivation is juxtaposed against immense growth: gleaming tower blocks, the highest productivity in Greater Manchester and 11,000 businesses—an 85% increase since 2010. So why is the growth that we have created not benefiting everyone? The Government should ask themselves that question. Although many of the strategies the Government have outlined so far—from housing through to our employment rights programme and the neighbourhood plan—are all very welcome, the Government can take immediate measures now, while they are waiting to develop their anti-poverty strategy, to help to alleviate the suffering that many families in my constituency face. First, it is welcome that the Government have suggested they will look again at the cut to the winter fuel allowance, but the detail must be fleshed out urgently to avoid the anxiety that many pensioners face in my constituency. On child poverty, only this week a report by Loughborough University showed that at least a quarter of children are in poverty in two thirds of areas across the UK. Experts found an extremely high correlation between child poverty and the two-child benefit limit. It is clear that the Government’s priority must be to scrap the two-child benefit cap and, ultimately, lift 470,000 children out of poverty overnight. Thirdly, on disability poverty, although it is welcome to have programmes to assist people into work where it is possible, cutting people’s support is not the way to incentivise that. It will push 250,000 people into poverty, and I urge the Government to rethink their proposals.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I note the Secretary of State’s reluctance to entertain public ownership, but I draw his attention to research from the University of Greenwich that shows that bringing water into public ownership would pay for itself within about seven years and that, after that, it would save the public purse up to £2.5 billion a year. Is the Secretary of State aware that immediately bringing Thames Water into special administration and permanent public ownership would cut the company’s massive debt mountain in half, stop the payment of huge dividends and debt payments into the future, and within just several years actually start turning a profit for the people of this country?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing today’s debate and for his impassioned and articulate speech, which I very much associate myself with. I am quite staggered at how regularly our minds meet on the crisis of capitalism, although we do have different answers to it from time to time. I place on record my role as the chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, and thank them for their extensive work on this issue over the years. As we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, the groceries supply code of practice and the adjudicator, despite being well intentioned, miss the mark by quite a large margin in terms of protecting those whom they were designed to protect. The code applies only to designated grocery retailers whose annual turnover is more than £1 billion. It does not apply to indirect suppliers, cover pricing or consider the protection of workers throughout the grocery supply chain; and even with its limited powers, it has not issued a single fine. Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, agrees with the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of those deficiencies, the UK’s food system is on a precarious footing. It says that most suppliers producing and processing the food that ends up on our supermarket shelves are vulnerable to unfair purchasing practices, which can send competent businesses into bankruptcy, undermine competition and lead to a worse deal for consumers. As the bakers union says, there is a limit to suppliers’ ability to keep prices down through productivity increases from automation or sourcing cheaper inputs—a key factor in the horsemeat scandal. As a result, there is relentless downward pressure on labour costs, leading to attacks on the pay and conditions of workers employed in and across supply chains. In the four weeks to 18 May, grocery price inflation has jumped to 4.1%—its highest level since February last year. Of course, the reasons for that are complex, ranging from wholesale costs, to energy and ecological issues, all the way through to problems with the supply chain, but that does not mean that the Groceries Code Adjudicator can continue to ignore the important issue of excessive pricing. Sometimes there is a reasonable cause, beyond the control of the supermarket or supplier, but sadly, sometimes it is a result of aggressive cost cutting, asset stripping, and unsustainable leveraging strategies. There are long-running accusations that some of the big retailers and manufacturers have been using reduced competition and market leverage to set prices and, in turn, make excessive profits. For example, in 2023 wholesale food prices started to fall, with the World Bank saying they were expected to drop by 8% by the end of the year; but those falls were not reflected on supermarket shelves for some considerable time, which led to accusations of “greedflation”. Even the Tesco chairman suggested that suppliers might be at fault, telling the BBC at the time that it was “entirely possible” they were using high inflation as an excuse to raise prices unnecessarily. Of course, the major retailers and suppliers refute that, and the Competition and Markets Authority said there was nothing to find—nothing to hang their hats on—but large profits and record executive pay and shareholder payouts were juxtaposed against a backdrop of high food inflation and food insecurity. Most people were perplexed, and rightly so. The Competition and Markets Authority might not have found widespread market abuse per se, but there remained a fundamental issue of fairness. Is it right to report bumper executive pay and shareholder dividends at times when consumers and the wider supply chain are struggling? Last November, interestingly, the Competition and Markets Authority’s second report on pricing suggested that manufacturers had been raising the cost of first infant formula milk higher than was necessary to cover inflationary costs. It was not the Groceries Code Adjudicator that instigated action. Some supermarkets themselves responded by slashing the cost of formula, but the fact is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should have had the powers to intervene earlier and to regularly monitor price fluctuations to identify emerging issues. It should not have taken a one-off CMA investigation to uncover that unscrupulous price hike. If the Groceries Code Adjudicator cannot investigate and robustly intervene to protect suppliers, producers or consumers when it is clear that the pricing structure of a supermarket or a major supplier pricing structure is putting the short-term interests of shareholders above the wider public interest, and if it cannot respond to emerging issues, outline measures to help families facing hunger and protect the sustainability of the UK grocery supply chain, what is the point of the Groceries Code Adjudicator? There are a few recommendations that I have made to the Minister on which I would like an update. I hope he will take these points on board. First, a new groceries regulator authority with beefed-up powers should be established with a wider responsibility to protect the sustainability of UK suppliers and the interests of consumers. It must apply to the whole sector, not just to those with a turnover of more than £1 billion. The new regulator should be given the power to introduce price floors and ceilings to protect suppliers and consumers from aggressive pricing tactics and exploitative price gouging. There must be an investigation across DEFRA, the Department for Business and Trade and the Competition and Markets Authority into the impact of private equity acquisitions of UK groceries retailers and manufacturers on the security and sustainability of the UK food supply chain. We must restore and extend sectoral collective bargaining for workers employed in the UK food supply chain. Finally, we must introduce a statutory right to food in UK legislation and address the root causes of insecurity. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings rightly set out, consumers should not be forced to buy their goods from major retailers if they are the only retailers in town. We have to provide an economic framework that supports suppliers and producers and ensures that people enjoy a diversity of shopping experiences and diversity in pricing so that we have a sustainable UK food sector.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  Salford precinct’s busy Crown post office is a vital lifeline for residents and businesses alike, especially for those who collect their pensions and benefits in person. Put simply, closing it in favour of a franchise would cause local economic and social devastation, especially if services are reduced and staff are let go. It would also put that service at the whim of the franchisee, which, as we know from the recent case of WH Smith, causes great uncertainty and insecurity. What is the Minister doing to guarantee that Salford retains all its existing post office services and staff in this geographical location, and what alternatives has he considered or will he consider in favour of shelving franchising?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Eating Disorder Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her fantastic, articulate and passionate speech, and for the work she has done, along with the rest of the all-party parliamentary group, on this very important issue. According to Beat, at least 1.25 million people in the UK—that is one in 50 people—are living with an eating disorder. As we know, eating disorders are complex health conditions that are often misunderstood or undiagnosed, which often prevents people from reaching out for help. Even when somebody is brave enough to reach out for help, or they reach a crisis point that requires intervention, they often struggle through a complex and underfunded system that does not provide the comprehensive help they need. As we heard, in January the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group published a stark report that stated that NHS admissions for eating disorders exceeded 30,000 for the first time in 2023-24, that eating disorder services have become worse rather than better over the past few years, and that some NHS trusts are discharging patients with a body mass index of less than 15 and even as low as 11.1. The most recent report from Beat, “There’s No Place Like Home”, found that, worse still, only one in seven NHS areas in the UK provides the recommended level of intense community and day treatment for children, young people and adults, with 6% offering that for children and young people only and 10% offering it for adults only. Those are staggering statistics but, as we know, behind them lie the real human stories, which highlight the inadequacies of the system as it stands and the heartbreak that the individuals and their families go through. Over the years I have dealt with a number of cases. A few years ago there was a particularly harrowing case of a teenage girl whose weight had dropped so low that she was in a life-threatening crisis a number of times, but nearly every time she needed hospital admission her family were informed that no specialist beds were available. In one instance, she was offered a bed on a general paediatric ward, where staff were not trained in dealing with eating disorders. She was put on a refeeding plan, but because there were no specialist staff, she did not eat anything significant and her weight dropped even further. In another instance she was offered a bed on an adult psychiatric ward, which is a frightening place for any teenager, and in another the family were told that there were simply no beds available and that if they were really worried about her, they should just go straight to A&E. The situation has not improved in recent years. I have a story similar to the one we heard from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). A local resident in Greater Manchester is in a state of crisis, but the only available bed they have been offered is in Glasgow, away from their family support system, which is essential to their long-term recovery. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is clear on the causes of the crisis. It says: “Services are struggling to manage demand partially due to chronic staff shortages, historic underfunding and a lack of resources. They must be provided with additional funding so that they can meet the needs of patients and carers both now and in the future.” It is certainly welcome that the Government have recently responded positively to the reports by the APPG and Beat, but I would be grateful for more clarification from the Minister on a number of recommendations—namely, on implementing a national strategy, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Bath; on additional funding for eating disorder services to address demand; on a confidential inquiry into all eating disorder deaths; and on non-executive director oversight for adult and children’s eating disorder services.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  There is so much to welcome in today’s statement, but the Chancellor will be aware of serious concerns regarding welfare reform. A constituent told me last week: “I’m terrified of what will happen to me if I can’t work. I’m already having thoughts of suicide at the prospect of these changes and what they will mean for disabled people.” Today’s impact assessment shows a 250,000 increase in the number of people living in relative poverty and a 50,000 increase in children living in relative poverty. What will the Chancellor do to stop this from happening?