John McDonnell MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Sometimes in these debates, we are trying to influence those on the Front Bench; to be honest, on this legislation, I have given up on that. I just want to get on the record, for my constituents, why I am concerned about this piece of legislation and why I support amendment 11. We have all prefaced our speeches by saying that we all want to tackle fraud. To follow on from the speech by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), in that process during covid, I think I was the first MP to raise the issue of the massive fraud that was going on with bank loans. When I wrote to the then Chancellor and to various Ministers, I received responses that had almost been dictated by the banks, saying that all the security measures had been put in place and that it was being administered effectively; we then discovered that it was, I think, £13 billion, although we recovered an element of that, so I am very wary about ensuring that public expenditure avoids the levels of fraud that we saw during that time. I am concerned about this Bill, which takes huge steps constitutionally, legally and on civil liberties. Others have made similar points. Our tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty—that has been the legal principle from Magna Carta onwards. The investigation powers are usually triggered by some element of suspicion. This legislation rides roughshod over that long 1,000-year tradition. On privacy, whatever assurances we are given about the Bill’s compliance with human rights legislation— I have my doubts—it introduces, for the first time that I have seen in this country on an issue like this, mass surveillance.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and have worked with Equity through the Performance Alliance and the Musicians’ Union for the last 25 years. I just want to get on the record the union perspective. As other Members have said, often in these debates the workers have been portrayed as luddites. It is quite the reverse; it is the workers who are creating these mechanisms. As hon. Members have said, all that the trade unionists are asking for is for their rights to be protected—protected through collective bargaining, which is the mechanism that we have used for over a century for negotiations between the trade unions and the trade associations. The request is straightforward: that copyright law should be respected. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who secured the debate, eloquently and comprehensively set out that that law is actually not unclear or disputed—it exists. The simple rule is that if someone wants to use someone else’s material, they must secure a licence with the rights holder. As a result, through that collective bargaining mechanism, we can protect everybody in future.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly right. One of the key issues raised by the hon. Member for Bury North is that lack of transparency, because people are not even aware that their stuff is being used until a later date, and then they are outraged. The role of Government is to ensure that they can enforce that the AI being developed is compliant with the regulations. In addition to that, as has been mentioned, the Information Commissioner has made very clear the role of GDPR and how it applies in such cases, and that the issue is about ensuring, from Government, that there is proper enforcement. The simple message from this debate to the Minister is to just drop the Government’s proposed text and data exception. Several hon. Members have made it clear that nobody has discovered an effective opt-out mechanism that is applicable at this time—maybe some time in the future, but certainly not in the immediate future. The other issue is that the performers’ rights framework needs to be updated now. That demand has come from virtually every trade union, and other bodies representing individual artists as well. That is the debate we should be having—about how we could update and improve that framework, and about enforcing existing GDPR. One of the briefings that I saw said that this country is a gold mine of creativity and creative content. Well, at the moment, there is a gold rush on. It is a wild west out there, and the people benefiting are the big US tech companies. I do not want to push the analogy too far, but we need a sheriff. That is the role of Government; the Government should not be taking us backwards rather than moving us forwards. I hope that the Minister leaves this debate with a full understanding of the tenor not just of what is needed, but of the cross-party strength of feeling. We need the Government to intervene positively to protect people’s rights and to protect that gold mine of creativity in this country.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Birmingham: Waste Collection · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of Unite, and I am very proud of that; I think four generations of my family have been members. Not to rise to the provocations of Conservative Members, but there is a difference between having three military advisers and having troops on the streets. The latter would be seen as an act of provocation and a worsening of the situation. May I suggest that the Minister or the Secretary of State convenes the meetings between the council and the union to secure progress in the negotiations?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  Before the hon. Member moves on, and to save people from going to the website, can I mention Brunel University? I have been on the picket lines with UCU, and there are large numbers of job cuts being threatened. It is a successful university that is doing everything asked of it by Government to provide skills training for the future. What is extremely disappointing to me is the refusal of management to even engage with the union to look at transitional arrangements and future planning. There must be a way in which we can work through this, after years of austerity. The Government must work with universities’ management and the unions to see the way through.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Eating Disorder Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know how to follow that speech. I just want to thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). I can understand how tough it was. I also put on record that we all agree that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is a star, who has been working on this throughout, and so are Hope Virgo and Dr Agnes Ayton and all the others behind the scenes. Just to give some hope to hon. Members, we now have a Minister in place with a record of understanding these issues, and with some of the sharpest elbows in Government to get the resources, so I am confident that there will be a move forward. He is aware of the strategy. It is straightforward. There must be input into training not only for health workers, but for teaching staff and education psychologists. We had school nurses come forward with a package that was incredibly effective in raising awareness on the issues, including online safety. We need community level support services, specialist units and family support. One of the issues raised in the briefings we have circulated from the all-party parliamentary group is the lack of family support. As has been exemplified, when a family member becomes a sufferer of these conditions, the family feel completely isolated and lack support in some of the most challenging situations any family can face. During the discussions around this strategy, there is a need to go into the detail of family support, including the professional advice and community support they can access, to ensure that they do not become isolated. There is also the issue of financial support. I ask the Minister to look at the consultation on disability benefits and support for people with long-term sickness conditions that is taking place now. Again, it is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure that sufferers do not lose their benefits as a result of this review. The Government are undertaking consultations, but not on the criteria for the personal independence payment, the points-awarded system. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that and liaise with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, so that sufferers do not lose the benefits support that they have. Also, some families who are receiving carer’s allowance as a result of the award of PIP to an eating disorder sufferer may be at risk of losing that benefit, but they should not be. We are not even sure what the numbers are, so we would all be extremely grateful to the Minister if he could pay attention to that issue. Finally, the principle of the all-party group’s work has been to seek a process in Government for co-production of the strategy, in a timetabled way and with funding allocated over the life of this Government. That way, by the time we get to the next election, we can be confident that the strategy has been implemented based on the expertise of those who really know what needs to be done—the sufferers themselves and the families who support them. That process of co-production is as important even as the scale of funding that we need to achieve. Otherwise we will be wasting resources, rather than investing them effectively on the basis of what will work.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Eating Disorder Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  I raised with the Minister the reform of disability benefits, which will have implications for sufferers and their carers. My understanding is that the universal credit health element is to be denied to those under the age of 22. In addition, it will be halved and then frozen, and the PIP criteria are changing. As I said, I simply want the Minister to check with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions what the implications are for sufferers of these conditions and their carers. We need specific action to protect them in the consultation; otherwise, people who are already suffering financially as a result of such conditions—particularly when the whole family supports the sufferer—will be further harmed.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  I think I still have the largest number of asylum seekers in hotels in the country, with more than 2,000, and I have experience of Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere. It would be really helpful if the new contractual arrangements involved full consultation with some of the organisations working at the frontline of supporting asylum seekers, so that some of the lessons can be learned about past performance to improve future performance.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is outlining the process by which essential infrastructure needs to be built, but she will forgive me for coming back to Heathrow expansion. I would be extremely grateful if she could set out for us—perhaps not today, but later or in writing—the exact process for considering the expansion of Heathrow under the new legislation. In addition, could she explain why those who will be affected by compulsory purchase will now be removed as consultees at the pre-application stage?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Disruption at Heathrow · Hansard source

  More

  Heathrow is in my constituency, as is the substation that caught fire, so I join other Members in thanking the firefighters who worked so hard to get this incident under control so quickly and at some risk. I also thank the police and the council officers who helped to evacuate 150 of my constituents from their homes. I was there on the day and met some of the residents, and I will be writing to them all so that we can pick up lessons from what they experienced on that day and build those lessons in. Now that this site has gained such a high profile, there are concerns about its security for the future. I would welcome some more detailed information coming out of the inquiry about how we will secure the site for the future, not just from accident but from potential attack.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, you know that there are decisions made in this House that stay with you for the rest of your life. This is one of them. We all agree with the Secretary of State’s objectives of trying to ensure that disabled people have the resources they need for a decent quality of life, and that those capable of work have support to get into work. However, trying to find up to £5 billion of cuts by manipulating the PIP rules and criteria will result in immense suffering and, as we have seen in the past, loss of life. What independent monitoring will take place and be reported to the House, and what threshold of suffering is needed before an alternative route is taken to supporting disabled people?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Swann Report: 40th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  One of the lessons learned through the work that people have done on the ESN scandal is about the role of unconscious bias. We hear from parents, experts, teachers, educational psychologists and others that unconscious bias has the same cause as exclusions. One of the reasons why people are calling for an inquiry is to look at the lessons that can be learned by Ofsted and other agencies about how we support schools and address their practices.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary” means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow. New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved. Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members. Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether. When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given. The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue. All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action. As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA. There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults. I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice. A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector. I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened? There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining. The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists. The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just to inflame matters more, I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group as well. Next Monday is the third anniversary of the P&O scandal. Members might recall what happened: 800 members of staff—RMT members, largely—turned up for work and were sacked by video. Many of them were marshalled off their vessels by trained bouncers and guards who dealt with them roughly. The reaction across the House and across society was that this was repellent and should not happen in a civilised society. The Labour party then made a commitment that it would introduce legislation that would install in law the seafarers’ charter, and that is exactly what the Bill does, so I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister on doing this. But as he can guess, we see this as just the first step, because there is so much more to do, particularly in this sector, where many workers are still exploited compared with shore-based workers. Government new clause 34 extends the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award, to be frank, because P&O built into the pricing the amount it would be fined as a result of its unlawful behaviour, so that did not matter to P&O—it simply priced that in. In addition, we were looking for injunctive relief, and I thank the Government for entering into discussions about that. Many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest error by a union in balloting procedures, but workers cannot. We are asking for a level playing field. We hoped that an amendment would be tabled to the Bill today, but it has not been. We hope the Government will enter into those discussions and go further.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British human rights campaigner who has been imprisoned in Egypt for over 10 years. The Prime Minister will know—he has met the family—that his mother is on the 150th day of her hunger strike and her health is failing rapidly. May I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to President Sisi and seek the release of Alaa to save his life and that of his mother?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) should not be so self-deprecating. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was brought about by an excellent piece of work and a good campaign. It was possibly the only thing of any worth that the Lib Dems did in government with the Conservatives. I just want to make a couple of brief points because my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others have covered the ground very well. I am a member of the bakers union group, too, and in 2013 we welcomed the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We met a few times to talk about the individual issues that occurred then. If hon. Members can remember, we raised the issue of low-cost production, particularly of bread, which was a result of supermarket pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford raised the issue of private equity. If we thought it was bad enough when there were individual supermarkets of sizeable status, we are now in a completely different world. Private equity is sweeping them up, exercising enormous power. I feel that the Government need to get ahead of the game. It is like the residential care sector before private equity took over and leveraged those individual companies. I can remember a number of them collapsing, and I think we are in exactly the same position here. That is why the call for an inquiry, bringing in all concerned partners, is invaluable. It is important to think through the implications and what regulation we can develop. The bakers union is calling for a new regulatory authority, because that would give more status and resources, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We need to understand the significance of what is happening in the field at the moment. I want to make a second, brief point. The Minister here today is also responsible for the Employment Rights Bill that is going through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned low pay. The bakers union survey found that 80% of its members were struggling to get by on basics such as rent, heat and food. There is a scandal on sick pay in this sector. The survey found that 37% of workers have to rely on statutory sick pay alone when they go off sick. Staggeringly, 13% received no sick pay at all. As a result, I believe some are forced into working when they are sick, which is the last thing anyone wants in this sector. It is important that the issue of sick pay is addressed in the Employment Rights Bill, which I think most people will welcome. I know amendments on that are being tabled as we speak and, in this sector, it could have a direct impact on the wellbeing of workers. Finally, if we are to move forward, from the bakers union perspective the establishment of a regulatory authority is critical. How it is made democratically accountable is also important. Along with the engagement of farmers and supermarkets, it is key that workers are involved and represented through the unions involved in this sector, so that we can plan a long-term strategy for food production that is not based on low pay or exploitation of farmers.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  Why not? Go on!

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s statement about the British Government complying with international law, because a number of us are concerned about complicity. Mark Smith, the diplomat who resigned because of his concern about arms sales to Israel, wrote three days ago: “I saw illegality and complicity with war crimes.” Has there been an investigation into Mark Smith’s allegations?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about heartbreaking stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and I have just come off a Public and Commercial Services Union picket line outside a Department, and one of the issues that was raised with us was the cost of living, particularly fuel poverty, because those workers are on low wages and are experiencing poverty. One of the things that Ministers could do now is go back to their Departments, review all their contracts, end the outsourcing and bring those workers back into an insourced service.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I simply wish to make one request and propose one amendment to the Bill. I have listened to the whole debate. There are more asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency than in any other constituency in the country. I have two detention centres, one of which was the last to imprison children, so I understand. I tour the hotels, and every time there is a debate like this in this place and it is reported outside, I worry because it creates insecurity, worry and fear among the asylum seekers in my constituency. To answer a point made earlier, most of the asylum seekers in hotels at the moment did come in the boats, but they came in the boats because there is no other route. It is as simple as that. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, and the PCS and the frontline Border Force staff it represents say that the way to stop the boats is to introduce a safe-passage visa system, accessible through our European centres or online. That would undercut the criminal gangs’ money earning potential. When I meet asylum seekers and listen to their individual stories of the suffering both in their home country and during their passage here, I rarely come away without tears in my eyes. It is also rare that I do not come away impressed by the scale of their talent, and by just how much they can contribute to our economy and our society. I want the message to go out that I welcome asylum seekers—it is as simple as that. There has been a failure to address the age assessment of individual applicants. The previous Government introduced the national age assessment board, which uses supposedly scientific measures to assess an applicant’s age. As Members involved in that debate will know, experts both in this place and elsewhere—Lord Winston has been mentioned—have contested the idea that it is a scientific approach and said it is inaccurate. It has been proven to be a failure, and where it has been used in other countries, it has never been solely relied upon. What has been successful is a comprehensive evidence-taking process, through a social work-type assessment of individuals. Since the new system was introduced, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) mentioned, there have been 1,300 incorrect assessments. What does that mean? I will give one example. Under the new law, 450 people have been convicted of arriving on the boats. Of those 450 convictions, 14 people who were imprisoned were later determined to be children. If a child is incorrectly assessed, they are classified as an adult and are put into an adult institution, and some of those classified as adults have therefore been imprisoned alongside adult offenders. That is not fulfilling our duty to safeguard children, is it? That is why this system needs to be changed. We need to reinvest the £1.7 million that has been wasted on these “scientific” assessments and go back to the social assessments made by professional social work experts. At least we will then be able to live up to the expectation of safeguarding young people.

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

  More

  That is why the code of practice is going to be interesting. The code of practice needs to be published as rapidly as possible to see what mechanisms will be available for us to protect our constituents. I have one area of experience with regard to the flagging up of sums of money that raise concerns: in the debates that we had on tax avoidance, we talked about suspicious activity reports. There is a record of real faults and a high number of errors in that process. As a result, people have been not just penalised, but penalised unfairly and exposed unfairly. It is not that I am in any way a defender of tax avoidance or anything like that, but if we are to introduce a system, we need to make sure that it is secure and effective, and does not penalise people unfairly. The Bill is supposed to be proportionate, safe and fair. The reason why people will feel that it is unfair is that it specifically targets people who are often in desperate need. If there was a group of people whose accounts we would want to monitor because there has been a history of fraud, and who have had to pay money back—some have gone to prison—it would be MPs. I was here during the expenses scandal. Following that experience, are we really not monitoring our accounts for undue payments and so on? Why is it always the poor who we target in this way? As I said, I am really worried about the climate of fear, particularly among people with disabilities, which the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned. We know about 600 suicides that are related to DWP activity. We circulated John Pring’s book “The Department”, which looks at the DWP’s role in those deaths, to all MPs, and it was starkly obvious that it had made a significant contribution, if not caused them. I remember a case in Scotland in which a poet in Leith committed suicide but did not leave a suicide note; he just left a letter from the DWP beside him. My view is that whatever steps we take in exercising the powers in the Bill, we have to be extremely careful. One of the things I want to raise—if I can crowbar it into this legislation through an amendment, I will—is that a number of us, on the basis of the work of Mo Stewart, who does research on poverty and welfare benefits, have said that we must give people assurances that they will be protected and that we will do everything we can to cause no harm, and certainly not cause any further suicides, but we must also learn the lessons of what has happened in the past. One of Mo Stewart’s proposals is for an independent advisory panel for DWP-related deaths. We have exactly that system in place for deaths in custody. We have an advisory system at the moment for the DWP but, to be frank, it is not working. The minutes of the panel’s meetings are cursory, and it does not do detailed reports in the same way as the deaths in custody panel. If we are to reassure people out there that we really are looking after their interests, that is one small step that we could include in this legislation. I am not sure that we will be able to crowbar it into the title of the Bill, but I will do my best and would welcome other Members’ creative drafting to help me. Such a measure would send out the right message. The Secretary of State has tried to do that tonight with her assurances about the processes, but I am not sure whether that will be enough, given the climate of fear that we now have. What are the next steps? I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee for us all to get our head around the detail of the Bill. I hope that there will be more consultation; it would be better to delay Report to enable that. I also wish to raise the same issue as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry): we were given assurances that the proposals would be implemented by co-production rather than announced from above. It would be an example of good governance if there were a process of proper consultation. After the Ellen Clifford case, in which the High Court ruled against the previous Government on their consultation, the spirit of the Government’s response was that there would then be proper consultation, hopefully on the principle of “Nothing about us without us”. Consultation on the detail of the Bill throughout its passage would be the best example that this Government could give of that process working productively so that we get it right and we do not endanger any more people, as unfortunately has happened in the past.

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

  More

  I do not want to repeat what has been said by others, but I will share my perspective on the Bill. It is in two parts, and there is almost unanimity about the first part, which deals with how we tackle fraud carried out through contracts and so on. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for pointing out some of the elements of real concern in that part of the Bill, which, to be frank, I missed. The Bill has been published for only a week, and it has been difficult to go through it. I have been somewhat distracted by the Government trying to concrete over a quarter of my constituency with a third runway at Heathrow, and elements of the Bill need further examination. To be frank, I think it will face legal challenge in some form. I cannot welcome the first half of the Bill enough, which deals with tackling overall fraud. I was the first MP to raise with the then Chancellor the corruption that was taking place with covid bounce back loans. I raised it a number of times in the House, and I wrote to him twice. I received a standard letter that was almost identical to the response I got from the banks, which said they were going through their usual investigatory process, and then we eventually discovered that fraudulent claims for bounce back loans amounted to at least £5 billion. I welcome the first half of the Bill, because we need to be ruthless on the corruption and fraud that takes place. However, the second part of the Bill, particularly clause 74 and schedule 3, is where we are straining, to be frank. Some hon. Members have mentioned the context already. There is real fear out there among people who claim welfare benefits, particularly disabled people. It is a result of their being targeted, and of careless language in this place and elsewhere. That is then exaggerated even further by the media, and benefit claimants become targets. I echo what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, because I have the same problem in my constituency. Sometimes it is about telling people to claim what they are entitled to, because they are terrified of the stigma around claiming benefits at the moment, particularly older people. The atmosphere that we now have is a climate of fear, and I am worried that this debate will add to that climate of fear. The Secretary of State said that any proposal has to be proportionate, safe and fair, but there are real concerns about the proportionality of this Bill. As other Members have said, it is a mass surveillance exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I fear that once we start down the path of surveillance in this way, others will come back with proposals for where we can go further. As Members have said time and again, there is an issue with safety. How many lessons do we have to learn about the way that computer systems and the use of algorithms have destroyed people’s lives? My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that the banks are gearing up, but they have expressed concern that the Bill is almost an exercise beyond their abilities. As a result, there will be errors, which will reinforce the climate of fear around benefits.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really helpful response, but it does not respond to the fact that if we are to have a focus on poverty, rather than a debate on the welfare cap, which is breached on virtually an annual basis, it might be better to have a debate on the Government’s strategy to tackle poverty overall. Then we could have a proper discussion, and even a debate with a motion that could be amended where we want to see improvements. That is what I want to get on to now. I hope that people have seen today’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on overall poverty, which reflects what most of us know and experience in our constituencies. It is shatteringly depressing, to be frank, because it does not show any improvement over the last few decades. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) mentioned that the Tory Government introduced this measure when they came into power. It was during the period of austerity, and it is worth reflecting on what that meant. The London School of Economics’ report and other independent reports say that 140,000 people lost their lives as a result of austerity; others have estimated that the figure could be up to 300,000. In part, that was because of the grinding poverty that was imposed on people, as reflected in all our constituencies—we saw it. I remember a time when there were no food banks in any of our constituencies, because they were not necessary, but now they are, as a result of 14 years of austerity. If we are to have a proper debate on poverty, we need to highlight as individual constituency MPs where we think the Government should be going, so I will briefly do so on the basis of what we have seen in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. I always cite the overall figures: we have 15 million people living in poverty, including 5 million children. I think the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report says that there are 4 million people living in deep poverty, and nearly 4 million in destitution. The statistic that always shocks me is that 1 million children are in destitution. I never thought we would use the word “destitution” again in our society; I always thought we would improve year by year and lift people out of poverty. I never thought that children would live in poverty in the way that some of my generation did. There are groups that clearly need to be on the agenda, and my hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned some of them, thank goodness. I chair a group of unpaid carers, of whom there are 5 million in this country. If an unpaid carer is looking after a disabled member of their family, it is almost inevitable that they will be living in poverty, unless we face up to the central demand of unpaid carers, which is to address their income. It is not just about how much they can earn, which the Government have looked at recently; it is about the carer’s allowance being at such a level that people cannot survive on it. Looking at the report with regard to families with children living in poverty, I cannot at the moment see a faster way of getting children out of poverty than scrapping the two-child limit. I am hoping that will be on the agenda as a priority when the Child Poverty Action Group reports to Parliament. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has identified that the poverty rate among disabled people is now 30%. The Government are about to consult again on the work capability assessment reforms because they lost in court to Ellen Clifford two weeks ago. I am pleased that the Government lost in court, to be frank. The basis of that decision was the lack of consultation on the previous Government’s reforms. I do not understand why our Government continued the appeal within the court, but they did. They have now lost and have been forced to bring forward their consultations on the reform of the work capability assessment. I am hoping that those reforms will be done in co-production with disabled people—on the basis of the disability groups’ principle, “nothing about us without us”. My fear is that an overhanging £3 billion-worth of savings is required from the DWP on this issue. If that results in cuts to individual benefits, I think there will be uproar within our communities and across this House. What is also interesting in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report is that the poverty rate among people who are suffering long-term health conditions is 50%. The work that the Department of Health will now do in walk-in advice surgeries, for example, and the focus on mental health, will be key. The household benefit cap overall is iniquitous. It forces families into poverty, particularly in places such as London, because of the high rents that are hitting people. According to the Joseph Rowntree report, the poverty rate among renters in social housing is 44% and in the private rented sector it is 35%. The Government’s refusal to accept the amendment to introduce rent controls, which was tabled by a number of Labour Members, was extremely disappointing. The Government could at least devolve that power to the individual Mayors so that they can represent their communities and introduce rent controls where necessary. I believe that Sadiq Khan has expressed his support for that power to be devolved. With rent controls, we could tackle the housing crisis that we face within our constituencies. When we talk about poverty, we need to come forward with an agenda that will tackle it at pace, and I do not think that, in our discussions in the future, a welfare benefits cap in any form will assist in bringing forward the reforms that our constituents so desperately need.