What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Government secured a major increase in the UK’s annual bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to around 230 tonnes, creating new opportunities for fishers across the United Kingdom. Licences were allocated through a fair, transparent process, with successful applicants selected by a ballot after meeting strict criteria. We continue to work with the devolved Governments and Crown dependencies to support the growth of this important fishery.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, one Scottish fisher secured a commercial bluefin tuna licence in 2025, authorised through a fair and transparent application process. That fisher was unsuccessful in 2026. As set out in guidance, due to demand, authorisations are currently issued for one year only and are not automatically renewed. We are working with Scotland and other fisheries administrations to gather evidence on the current approach, and we will certainly consider my hon. Friend’s ideas and views further.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to Northern Ireland in a Westminster Hall debate last week, rightly knowing that I am a fan of scampi. I look forward to finding time for that opportunity in due course. I thank him for his invitation to engage in these issues and I am happy to follow up with him.
As I mentioned, I am due to meet the National Pig Association in due course. I take those issues seriously and I want to ensure that there is certainty and clarity in the sector. We recently published our farming road map, which brings that certainty and consistency, but I am happy to follow up on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on those important matters. This is about fairness for consumers and farmers. We want people to know where their food comes from, trust what they are buying, and back British farmers who meet our high standards. I would happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss his helpful ideas.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. I take these issues extremely seriously, and will bring forward the meeting so that I see the organisation as soon as possible.
I welcome the leadership that my hon. Friend is demonstrating through the APPG on fisheries for industry and coastal communities like ours. The Government are focused on delivering practical support for the sector through measures such as the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, fisheries management plans and the fishing coastal growth fund. I welcomed the opportunity recently to catch up with my hon. Friend on her important work, and I look forward to engaging with the APPG on its priorities.
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this vital debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for campaigning on this topic, following her own diagnosis of lobular breast cancer. I add my tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, as today marks one year since she passed away from lobular breast cancer. As a founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, she campaigned tirelessly on behalf of women diagnosed with lobular breast cancer and raised awareness for the condition. I also pay tribute to members of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, including Susan’s husband, Tristan Loraine, for picking up the mantle, continuing the important work of the project and carrying Susan’s torch forward. I recognise the number of charities that carry out important work in this area, such as Lobular Breast Cancer UK, Breast Cancer Now and Cancer Research UK, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who continue to provide support, many of whom we have heard from today. Lobular breast cancer accounts for 15% of breast cancer cases. However, as we have heard, this form of cancer sadly goes undetected in too many women. We are determined to transform diagnosis and outcomes for patients. Earlier this year, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, who is the lead DHSC Minister on this issue—I am standing in for her today—and Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, met representatives of the Lobular Moon Shoot Project. Alongside Government research funders, they discussed the Lobular Moon Shot’s work, listened to the experiences of lobular breast cancer from those who attended, and discussed how to advance research in this vital area. Following that meeting, last month Lord Vallance hosted a scientific roundtable that brought together a range of researchers, clinicians and industry representatives to identify opportunities to advance research and innovation. At that meeting, attendees agreed that one of the next steps should be to encourage collaborative research and funding applications across multiple existing schemes, including for basic discovery science. I would like to emphasise that Government research funders stand ready to support that work as it progresses. We acknowledge and share the Lobular Moon Shoot Project’s ambition for researchers to take a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to addressing the unique challenges of lobular breast cancer. Government responsibility for delivering cancer research is shared between the Department of Health and Social Care, with research delivered by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with research delivered via UK Research and Innovation. The Medical Research Council primarily supports the discovery sciences and fundamental biological research, which is the focus of the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Through MRC, UKRI has emphasised its commitment to supporting interdisciplinary team-based research across its funding schemes and highlighted support for collaborative activities to provide a platform on which to build a portfolio of research in this important area. NIHR’s research is complementary to the MRC’s focus, supporting the translation of discovery science into patient benefit. Through the MRC and NIHR, we are already funding research into lobular breast cancer. For example, a breast cancer screening study is investigating whether a new, faster MRI scan could detect breast cancers earlier. The FAST—first post-contrast subtracted—MRI is a new type of scan that aims to detect cancers, including lobular breast cancer, that may not be routinely picked up by mammograms during a first screening visit. The £1.36 million study is jointly funded by the MRC and the NIHR. Furthermore, with a total investment of £32 million, the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre support lobular breast cancer by combining translational research, precision diagnostics and targeted clinical trials to develop and test tailored treatments. Promising discoveries are being made. Scientists at the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research have recently discovered a drug, currently being tested in clinical trials for a rare blood cancer, that could also be used to treat lobular breast cancer. Researchers now hope to progress the drug to clinical trials for lobular breast cancer. More widely, we are supporting world-leading research and development to enable the prevention of cancer and to improve diagnosis, treatment and care for people affected by the conditions. Cancer is a major area of NIHR spending. Reflecting its high priority, the institute spent £141.6 million on it in 2024-25. Alongside that, UKRI invested £198 million in cancer research in the same year. We are investing in the best science, which explores lobular breast cancer both in isolation and in conjunction with other cancers, to maximise the opportunity to share learning and identify possible breakthroughs. Historically, the breast cancer research community has categorised the field around signalling, pathway and molecular presentation on tumours. Rather than naming a particular cancer sub-type, therefore, grants within the MRC portfolio focus on the understanding of molecular mechanisms common to both lobular breast cancer and invasive breast cancer. We know that more research is needed. That is why both the MRC and NIHR are committed to continuing to support the development of high-quality, fundable research proposals. There are a range of existing opportunities across funders that support this developing portfolio. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025 to signal to researchers our interest in funding research into this area.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) was first.
In a nutshell, what I am trying to lay out is that it is not an either/or question. There is a tremendous amount of work going on to research cancer, including lobular breast cancer, which is a vital subset of that work. The challenge for us is the idea of ringfencing £20 million, because ringfencing is not the standard process. The standard process is to have applications that are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to the public and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality. If there is a difference of view in the Chamber today, it is whether we have an ecosystem of cutting-edge research, applications and competitive process, based on the principles I have just outlined, or a ringfenced fund. I have to be absolutely clear and straight with my hon. Friend that currently the Government are not of the view that a ringfencing approach is the right way to go. The worry is that that approach could potentially cut across the ecosystem-based approach that we are seeking to nurture and foster, which we believe will deliver better outcomes in the end.
As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately I am not the lead Minister on this issue, so I do not have the most up-to-date information on the proposal that has been submitted. If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will speak with the ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, and write to the hon. Lady on that subject, providing an update on exactly where the proposal is in terms of the overall process that we have. Have I understood her intervention correctly?
Okay. I thank the hon. Lady. That is what we will do.
My understanding is that there are bids that are good enough and they are the ones that have attracted funding for research into lobular breast cancer. What I do not know at this moment is precisely where the live bids are and whether they are making the cut in terms of the quality that we are looking for. I will absolutely follow up with my ministerial colleague, and I will write to my hon. Friend on that point.
I will absolutely take that suggestion back. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about having a specific call for proposals. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South and get back to him. Our approach to funding research is through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals most likely to deliver real impact for patients are funded without imposing financial targets or limits. We also recognise that international research co-operation is fundamental to driving medical breakthroughs and saving lives. That is why the DHSC participates in and influences the EU cancer mission, which aims to improve the lives of more than 3 million people affected by cancer by 2030 through multi-country research calls and activities. For breast cancer, that includes a focus on driving screening innovation, including the MammoScreen project, supported by UKRI, which is developing safe, non-invasive, microwave-based imaging for more accurate screening. The Government’s national cancer plan for England, published earlier this year, sets out our ambition to improve cancer outcomes and ensure that by 2035, three in four people diagnosed with cancer survive for five years or more. Research, innovation and earlier diagnosis are central to achieving that ambition. We know that too many women with lobular breast cancer face delays in diagnosis because it can be more difficult to detect. That is why the work being championed by the Lobular Moon Shot Project is so important. The cancer plan recognises that improving outcomes depends on strengthening research, supporting innovation and bringing together researchers, clinicians, charities, industry and patients to tackle some of the biggest challenges in cancer care. That spirit of collaboration is exactly what we have seen through the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Through continued engagement with campaigners, researchers and patients, we want to support progress towards a better understanding of lobular breast cancer, and ultimately improvements in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for the women affected by it. More broadly, the plan is about improving not only clinical outcomes, but people’s experience of cancer care. Through more personalised support and better co-ordinated services, we want to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care and support throughout their cancer journey. The ambition of the national cancer plan is clear: to combine the strengths of our NHS, our research community and our life sciences sector so that patients benefit from the very best cancer care. That includes people living with lobular breast cancer who deserve the same progress, hope and opportunity as every other cancer patient. The DHSC was pleased to discuss the issue of NHS breast cancer screening at the petitions debate opened by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) last month. The NHS breast screening programme offers all women in England between the ages of 50 and their 71st birthday the opportunity to be screened every three years for breast cancer, to help detect abnormalities and intervene early to reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. In addition, some younger women at increased risk of breast cancer because of genetics or their family history are eligible for earlier, more frequent screening, sometimes using MRI rather than mammogram. We are also investing in research to improve the early diagnosis of breast cancer through the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial, which is backed by £11 million in Government support via the NIHR. Almost 700,000 women from across the country will take part in the trial to test whether using AI to support radiologists increases the number of cancers detected in women taking part in the national breast cancer screening programme. The trial will evaluate multiple AI technologies to assist radiologists in screening mammograms for signs of cancer. It may enable one specialist to complete the process safely, freeing up hundreds of radiologists to tackle waiting lists and rising cancer rates. My message to the research community is clear: research funding remains available, and that funding does not have a ceiling. We know that recent advances in technology and data science create a timely opportunity to accelerate progress. Our investment in research means that the UK is well positioned to lead research on this topic. We will continue to strongly encourage research applications. We stand ready to support the research community to develop and submit high-quality, ambitious proposals in remit for review. Our belief is that that approach will maximise the opportunity of seeing major steps forward in delivering better outcomes for those with lobular breast cancer through research. I thank all hon. Members and you, Mrs Hobhouse, for your time today.
Does my hon. Friend agree that among the geopolitical military strategy and the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the conflict, we must not lose sight of the millions of innocent civilians across the region who are trapped in the middle of violence, displaced from their homes, hungry and without access to healthcare, while grieving loved ones and living without safety and security? Will he set out what steps the Government are taking to press all parties to uphold international humanitarian law, to protect civilians from acute hunger and allow them access to basic healthcare?
Black Country Day is on 14 July, and we have a lot to celebrate. The Black Country was the heart of the industrial revolution, we have Dudley castle and the Wren’s Nest nature reserve, where people can pick up a fossil—and, of course, we can celebrate the people of the Black Country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing all those celebrating Black Country Day a great day? Will he grant a debate on the Black Country?
I was pleased to take part in the debate in the Chamber yesterday. I raised some examples from my local hospital, which is expanding its same-day emergency care because of the funding that we received from the Labour Government. We also have a safe haven for mental health patients who do not need to go into accident and emergency. Lots of work is happening in my local hospital area, which will make a big improvement to corridor care and wider emergency care pressures. Does the Minister agree that that is what we need to do, and that the Labour Government are doing it?
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I strongly believe that public health is very important to our health system because it focuses on prevention, so that people do not end up in A&E or in hospital beds. Unfortunately, over the last 10 or 15 years we have seen the opposite. If we are serious about improving the nation’s health, prevention must sit at the heart of every decision we make. Public health professionals bring a vital perspective—one that looks beyond treating illness to understanding and tackling its root causes. They consider the wider determinants of health, from housing and education to inequality and the environment, and they help us design services that keep people well, rather than responding only when they become unwell. We need to identify our priorities, ensure resources are allocated appropriately and develop a long-term strategy. New clause 79 proposes to create a new committee. As somebody who worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that there is no shortage of committees, senior leaders, management or meetings in our healthcare system. In fact, there are too many. What is missing are people to work on the frontline; that is what we saw over the 14 years under the Conservatives—and the Lib Dems were part of that. One reason why I became active in politics was that I saw the frontline struggling. I worked as a nurse on the frontline in mental health services, and what we saw was money being diverted to create more senior leadership, more groups, more meetings and more management, while we were missing the people who actually did the work on the frontline. The new clause asks us to create a new committee, but we have enough committees and managers. In fact, through the Bill, we are trying to modernise the system by getting rid of some of those managers—that is the most important thing I can identify in the Bill. However, lots of the new clauses I have seen today and in the last Committee sitting have proposed creating more committees and directors. We are missing a point here. The Committee has an opportunity to reform our health system. If Members speak to a nurse or doctor who works in a hospital in our system, they will say, “We need more nurses, healthcare assistants and doctors, not more managers or directors.” Not only in this new clause, but in many of the new clauses we are talking about, we need to think about embedding the public health voice within integrated care boards. Stronger integrated care boards will enable us to act early, reduce health inequalities and deliver care closer to home.
I absolutely agree, and I can give an example. Last week, as part of the ICB’s new independent neighbourhood health centre, one of the GP practices in my constituency started to proactively go and see all elderly patients. It is not just giving those patients appointments when they fall ill; it is proactively visiting them. We need that kind of support so that we can prevent illnesses and prevent people from needing to go to hospital.
My hon. Friend makes a sensible comment. I work closely with her on mental health, and she is absolutely right. Some of the policies the Government have introduced, such as giving children early access to mental health provision, will be absolutely vital to prevent them from becoming unwell later on. The Government are also rolling out a new mental health strategy focused on prevention, which will be important. We need to be more lean and productive, rather than creating more managers and committees.
I agree. We need more band 5 nurses or healthcare assistants who can check blood pressure or blood sugar in patients’ homes. When someone rings their GP surgery, they should be able to meet a nurse or a healthcare worker to carry out some basic checks, rather than being delayed from seeing somebody until, a few weeks, months or a year later, they end up in A&E. That is where the focus should be. I do not support the new clauses, and I urge the Committee to think about some of the other new clauses that propose creating more directors or committees. We need to focus on making our health system more productive.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the existing constitutional arrangements already provide mechanisms, ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny? Singling out one country is a politicising measure, and it will have long-term consequences for our relationship.
As the chair of the APPG on adult social care, I pay tribute to unpaid carers for the enormous contribution they make to their families, their communities and wider society. I often have meetings with them, and as part of my job before I became an MP—I worked in the NHS—I had a lot of contact with carers. I have seen so many vulnerable patients benefit from the enormous amount of work that carers do. In some services, such as the mental health service, there is already provision for identifying carers, carers’ assessments and support for carers. Carers provide extraordinary support, often at great personal sacrifice. Although the intention here is to make the wellbeing of carers a statutory duty, we need to be careful that we do not put any statutory responsibility for that on the NHS and create more administrative burden for it. I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that point, and if the Government would consider something to support carers, while not putting any more administrative burden on the NHS, where we are focusing on providing more support on the frontline. New clauses 16 and 17 would impose new obligations on integrated care boards to promote carers’ wellbeing and to identify and record unpaid carers whenever they come into contact with NHS services. I want to make it clear that we should not create any more administrative burdens for NHS frontline services. Although identifying and supporting carers is important, the requirement would add to the administrative burden on NHS organisations at a time when they should be focusing on delivering frontline care. We should be cautious about creating new statutory duties that divert resources and staff time away from patients. The proposal for a national respite care scheme is similarly well intentioned, but it risks imposing a centralised, one-size-fits-all model across a system that already makes local authorities and health boards responsible for assessing local needs and delivering support. Again, although we need more support for carers, we should be careful that we are not duplicating any of the services that are already available. Some charities also do a brilliant job of supporting carers. The provisions in these new clauses should be looked into, but we need to be cautious that we do not create more burdens for our existing systems.
I pay tribute to all the parents and schoolteachers who engaged with me last summer, following the White Paper and the SEND consultation. It has been a huge problem in Kent. Kent county council has been under Conservative administration for the last 25 years. In recent years, it was in special measures because of its SEND provision. Parents really struggled. My inbox is filled with these issues. We know that 98% of SEND provision tribunals rule in the parents’ favour. There has been a long wait. Does the Minister agree that, whether we accept the new clause or not, we need to look into how the NHS and local authorities can work together to make it easier for children, families and schools to get proper provision in place?
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Timms review of the personal independence payment—to make it fair and fit for the future, both for the disabled people who need it and for the taxpayer. Today, the Government are publishing an interim report on behalf of the review’s steering group. Copies will be placed in the Library in both Houses. We are committed to openness and transparency, so it sets out the evidence gathered so far and the emerging themes. It will inform the recommendations that will now be developed for the final report, which is to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn. PIP was introduced more than a decade ago, but the benefit has never been fully reviewed. Since 2013, the number of people reporting a disability has increased significantly; patterns of disability and ill health have changed; and the workplace and wider society have evolved. We have seen a sharp rise in disability and long-term health conditions, including in mental ill health among younger people. The number of people receiving PIP has risen considerably and is forecast to continue growing. Against that backdrop, we are taking a fresh look at whether a system introduced 13 years ago still reflects the realities of modern life, supports independent living and is sustainable for the long term. The Timms review is the first time that the UK Government have co-produced reforms on this scale. Our aim has been to have a review that is not just about disabled people, but shaped with disabled people. That means working together with disabled people and drawing on their lived experience. The review is led by three co-chairs—me, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson—and a steering group of 12 people we have recruited, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health. The group represents a range of impairments, as well as different parts of the country. No single group can represent the full range of experiences of disability, however, so we have set up a wide programme of engagement of varied, accessible opportunities in which people with differing lived and learned experiences can get involved. The interim report brings together the evidence we have heard so far. It includes a summary of findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses, and an evidence pack provided by my Department to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering. It is the strongest evidence base ever assembled on PIP, on the assessment process and on the experiences of those who rely on the payment. The interim report presents a clear message from the steering group: PIP is hugely valued for managing the additional costs of disability, but its current design and delivery are no longer fit for purpose. The assessment for PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising, and over 90% of those responding to the call for evidence reported that their experience of the PIP assessment was negative. PIP provides a lifeline for many, but the fear of losing it on reassessment can create serious barriers to participation in work, community life and other everyday activities. That is the direct opposite of the intention, which has always been to support independence and participation. The report also highlights that the benefit has not kept up with wider changes since PIP was introduced. This work will sit alongside the Milburn review into young people and work, which is looking at the factors behind rising economic inactivity among young people and how the Government can better support participation, opportunity and independence. The interim report sets out the next steps for the review. It outlines the evidence and engagement programme over the coming months, and how the review will test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in experience. We are not looking for quick fixes here. Reform needs to be guided by the evidence, if we are to address the underlying problems in the system and deliver lasting change. The Government are committed to a fairer system that has the trust of both the public and the people who rely on it. We have introduced the recording of health assessments by default, and we are substantially increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments to 30%, which reverses the sharp decline under the previous Government and helps to improve trust, accuracy and confidence in the assessments. Our objective is to reform the system so that it works better for disabled people, while ensuring that it is sustainable for the long term, and that the support will be there for future generations who need it. The review has been tasked with developing recommendations that can be delivered within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for future PIP spending. I thank everybody who has contributed time, evidence and expertise so far. I thank the steering group, including my fellow co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, for their support, commitment and determination. Crucially, I also thank the very large number of disabled people who have shared their experiences to help shape this work. The Government are committed to helping to remove the unnecessary barriers that disabled people too often face. This groundbreaking review is only part of that work, but it is an important part. We want to support disabled people in playing as full a part in society as possible. I commend this statement to the House.
The hon. Gentleman has set out some trenchant criticisms of the system that his party set up and left behind, and the question in everybody’s mind is: why did the Conservatives not do anything about it? They had 14 years, and they left the problems to which he has referred. He should be apologising to the House for the system that the party he represents left behind. The biggest ever rise in the welfare bill was in their last year in government. We previously heard that the Conservative party has a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, although nobody has any idea at all what those cuts will be. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that figure in his statement, so I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives now have a plan. He said that the Conservatives will review PIP; I welcome his belated recognition of the value of a review, but I do not know whether that means that they do not have a plan any more, or that they are throwing away the plan until they have carried out their review. The hon. Gentleman has rightly expressed concern about the rising costs of the system—the public are rightly concerned about that—and particularly about the steep increase in the number of young people who are claiming, but we have set up work to address that problem. His party abandoned the growing number of young people applying for benefits; we will not do so. We are changing the question that the system is asking, and we are providing employment support and the youth guarantee to give young people the chance of a decent future. The hon. Gentleman complained about the small number of face-to-face assessments, but that is what was left behind by the previous Government. Understandably, the system moved away from face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, but they were never brought back; that is the problem. We are increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which is an important and positive step. When we were upstairs debating a measure to facilitate greater face-to-face assessment, another shadow Minister said that it was a “nice to have”, rather than essential. We think that face-to-face assessments are key to rebuilding trust in the system, and that is why we are making the changes we are. The system that the Conservatives left behind did not work for disabled people, and did not work for taxpayers. This review will bring forward proposals to fix the problems that they created.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think we have an appointment in the diary to talk about the issues that he has raised about his constituency, and his constituent who has drawn his attention to them. My hon. Friend is right that, at present, the system does not work properly for disabled people, and it does not give taxpayers confidence that the funding is being well used. We are determined to turn things around and to be fair to both, and I am grateful for his support for the efforts we are making.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review, and for his tribute to those who have put a great deal of work into it already, and who will be putting in a lot more between now and the autumn. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the points that the system is not working well for disabled people at the moment, and that its costs are rising rapidly in a way that is of concern to many, including, rightly, taxpayers. He is right to highlight that this benefit, which is supposed to contribute to independence and participation, too often presents a barrier to those things, because so many people are worried that if they undertake an activity, the Department for Work and Pensions will say, when they get reassessed, “Oh, so you didn’t need your benefit after all, then,” and take it away. There is striking evidence of the scale of the concern about going to work, or taking part in exercise or sport. The current system presents significant barriers, and we want to address those. There are, absolutely, concerns about the rising costs, which we also need to address. All those factors will be in the minds of the steering group as we progress with the review, ahead of our final report in autumn. The steering group, as I mentioned, is made up almost entirely of disabled people. The concern about the financial sustainability of this benefit is of great concern to them as well, because if it is deemed to be not financially sustainable then there is a risk to its future. We need the support to be present for the long term for the large number of people for whom it is vital.
We are doing quite a lot of work in the Department specifically on assistive technology. In fact, the Secretary of State was at a roundtable recently with representatives of the tech industry. One problem is that the technology is moving on rapidly but a lot of people do not know about it. People are not even aware of the technology that is already in our phones and available without any extra charge. We are doing quite a lot of work on that at the moment. I hope we will, later this year, be able to issue a call for evidence on how to do a better job on exactly the areas my right hon. Friend highlights.
I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital. We will not be moving away from the importance of that, but I think there is a question about whether the process can also point people towards help that may be valuable to them in addition to, or in some cases perhaps instead of, a cash payment. There is help and support that people need, and I think the process could help to point people to that. One problem people have had to contend with is the terrible NHS waiting lists, which thankfully are now being reduced, but the system may be able to point people to the right place in the health service. We are looking at all those issues and we will come back with recommendations in our final report.
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to her work as the chair of the APPG on disability, and I am grateful to her for her welcome to us the other week. She is absolutely right. I very much hope that people with sight impairments and others looking at the review will feel that the Government have listened to the points that have been made for a long time. I assure her that co-production will be at the heart of the rest of the work as well. It was, of course, a decision of this House that the review should be co-produced. We have worked very hard to ensure that we are properly co-producing it. I think we are gaining the benefits of that approach and that the outcome from this exercise will be significantly better because it is a co-produced review.
Yes, I shall look out for the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and I hope he will receive a reply in short order. He is right that the system needs to work well for people to be confident in it. One thing he may welcome is that we have just started recording by default the assessments for PIP—the focus in the review is on PIP specifically—partly so that when something does go badly wrong, and his constituent’s case may well be an example of that, we can look back at what happened in the assessment and ensure that that mistake does not happen again.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and she is absolutely right. It has certainly been very clear in our review that there is concern among disabled people about some of the misinformation that she refers to. We want to ensure that correct and clear information is provided to people, and that there is clarity on the eligibility criteria for PIP and the assessment process. I hope that is going to help, but I think there will need to be other efforts, and we will work with disabled people’s organisations and disability charities to significantly improve the position.
Our objective must be both the things that the hon. Lady refers to. We need a system that works well for disabled people and that helps to remove unnecessary barriers that too often hold them back, but we also need to create a system that has the confidence of taxpayers, which is the objective of our review. We are certainly very interested in what has been happening in Scotland, and in the work of Social Security Scotland. At one of our forthcoming expert evidence sessions, we will hear from Edel Harris, who, as the hon. Lady knows, has recently undertaken a review of the adult disability payment in Scotland. We are very keen to monitor what has happened there.
I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her amendment. As she rightly says, that was what took us down the road of co-production, which I think has been a very fruitful avenue for the review. Central Government have certainly not done co-production on this scale before—I am not sure that we have done co-production at all in the past—but we are undertaking this review in a thoroughly co-produced way. It has been a very positive experience, including for the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will want to learn the lessons for future work. One thing that we will be doing is evaluating this review, so that those lessons can be properly documented and taken account of in the future. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to stay in touch with Sir Charlie Mayfield, who leads the Keep Britain Working review, and Alan Milburn, whose work I have referred to. I spoke to Alan the other day, and we will ensure that all this work is taken together. I am pleased that both Alan and Sir Charlie Mayfield have been talking to disabled people’s organisations to contribute to their work, and I know that will continue.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of language. This is a topic that the organisation Turn2us has been thinking about lately. One of the things that I am pleased about is that my job title is Minister for Social Security. I think that I am the first Minister to have “Social Security” in their job title since the abolition of the old Department of Social Security at the end of the 1990s. I think “social security” is a good term, and this review is about delivering that.
It is certainly our objective that the dehumanising aspects of the current system—he describes an example very well—should not be a feature of the future system. That is the clear aim of this review. The case to which he refers is not unusual, and many hon. Members will have similar examples from their own constituencies. The fact that we are now recording assessments by default could help us to find out why that assessment went so badly wrong. I really hope that we can improve things and rebuild confidence among disabled people and taxpayers that the system is doing the job we need it to do.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) just gave us an example—is that people have applied, the outcome has been wrong, and there has been a long, drawn-out process involving an appeal to get to the right answer. I hope that we will be able to develop an assessment that much more frequently comes up with the right answer the first time round, and that recognises where somebody has additional costs as a result of cancer and is therefore eligible for PIP. We will be talking to representatives of people with cancer, including young people, as part of our work, and I hope we will be able to come forward with recommendations that deal with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is at the heart of the Keep Britain Working review that Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading at the moment. He produced his report in November, which was directly about what more employers can do to ensure that their workplaces are accessible to disabled people, so that people who run into a health problem or disability in the course of their work do not automatically have to leave work, as too often happens. The reasons for that concern are exactly the ones that my hon. Friend raises: huge talent is too often being wasted. I am pleased that after Sir Charlie’s report was completed, he started working with 75 vanguard employers to develop the ideas in the report. I understand that the number is now up to about 250; there is a lot of employer enthusiasm here because they recognise how important it is. Quite often, the problem is that employers are not sure what to do in a difficult situation when somebody has a health problem. That review will take us a long way forward on exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises.