Jon Trickett MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I very much associate myself with your comments about Kevin Sinfield, Mr Speaker, who is a hero for the whole nation and a great role model. On the question of the north, the Leader of the House is right. In the great northern town of Featherstone, there is increasing irritation about the way in which the absentee and irresponsible owners of the former Junction pub are allowing it to deteriorate. It is now in a dangerous condition and I fear that somebody will be badly hurt. The process of dealing with dangerous structures is too long, too bureaucratic and too cumbersome. Please may we have a debate in Government time—I think lots of Members will have the same experience—so we can share our experiences and see whether the Government can push things forward?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  As others have, I very much welcome the announcement. For the thousands of families in my constituency with children in poverty, this is a great announcement. However, I remember the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government need to go further and faster, so I encourage the Minister when he goes back to his Department to ensure that the child poverty strategy is as radical as it can be and is adequately resourced. I ask him to return to the question of people on universal credit with children in poverty. Can we ensure that every child benefits from this announcement, because some families lack the capacity—for all sorts of reasons—to make the appropriate applications?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  The banks have more or less abandoned my constituency, and it sounds like that is the case for many others. Some 6,500 branches have closed in recent years, as have more than 200 post offices. There are 23 separate settlements in my constituency with no access to banking. We do have banking hubs. It is an hour each way by bus to get to one, and it costs at least six quid to get there and back. I represent large numbers of people living in poverty, and it is hard for them to raise that kind of money just to have access to banking services. I will make two other points about my constituency and then a general point. The bus services are very poor. As I have just said, it can take an hour each way to get to the banking hub, and the banking hub does not provide all the services that a bank should provide. My other point about my constituency is that there are 15 zones for the internet, and 11 of those 15 zones are among the worst for internet provision in the country. How on earth is someone supposed to access banking on an internet system that is simply not working? It shows the extent to which Britain’s infrastructure is creaking, and it is not acceptable that banks should abandon the people who helped to create them in the first place. I will just make this final point about mobility and accessibility. One in four households in my constituency has no access at all to a vehicle. That is more than 20,000 people without a van or a car to get them to a bank, even if a bank were available. It is a disgrace that the banks have turned their backs on all those people who were their loyal customers for so many years. Businesses that rely on cash and collect cash each day have nowhere to deposit it. People are driving home from their place of work or their business with cash in the boot and nowhere safe to put it. That is a dangerous thing. It is odd, ideologically, to hear Members from the party of free enterprise and the free market saying, “We have to do something about capitalism withdrawing from communities.” That is what is happening, and that is the nature of capitalism itself. We should just say that the financial sector in this country is worth £17 trillion, which dwarfs our GDP of £2.5 trillion. The banks are worth eight times more than the total output of the whole UK. As we have heard elsewhere, £44 billion of profit has been made by the banks in recent years. It is time we brought the banks to order to serve our communities—

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, I support the fact that there is a debate on this issue, and I support some of the points that the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has just made. It is clear that technology is moving fast, and when it does, it is essential that public authorities move even faster so that we feel properly secure and protected. I do not think we are quite there yet, and it is clear that there are different patterns of operation by public authorities in different parts of the country. We need an overall pattern. I also agree that we do not want to turn our back on this new technology. It is very important that we continue to transform our energy provision across the country as a whole, but the fact of the matter is that the fires that occur from time to time pose serious problems for fire authorities. Those authorities should take a central role in any national conversation about this matter. Guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council says that at least 1,900 litres of water per minute are needed to try to control a fire once it gets started. That is an incredible amount of water to deliver, and many sites simply cannot deliver it, although they seem to be making progress in some cases. The Government have said that there have not been many fires, but there have been quite a few. The one in Liverpool that the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned burned for a substantial period of time—59 hours—and there was one in California that lasted for five days. There have been three other fires in the UK this year, and we are only halfway through the year. When the fire authorities are trying to eliminate a fire, it is obviously complex, but it can lead to pollutants going into the ground and into watercourses, which itself is very dangerous. It has been shown that in Liverpool, when the smoke from the fire was sprayed by water, it produced hydrochloric acid that was distributed through the community—obviously, not a very healthy thing to have. Additionally, toxic fumes were created, which travelled a long way.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and take his point entirely. Some authorities have suggested that a two-mile radius is needed if a fire starts. People need to keep their windows and doors closed while the fumes are in the air, as there is a risk of children, elderly people and others breathing them in. In my constituency, there are two applications in place, both in beautiful parts of Yorkshire. In Heath, which is regarded as one of the crown jewels of Wakefield, there is a proposal for a large battery storage provision. Hundreds of people objected to it. The chief fire officer said: “The risks of vapour cloud, thermal runaway and explosion are unfortunately very real and are becoming more common as we see an increase” in battery storage. He talks about choices being given to the fire authorities, in whether they allow the fire to just burn itself out, with the risk of pollution of the atmosphere, or whether they attempt to tackle it. To control a fire at the site in Heath would require millions of litres of water in a 24-hour period. It is almost impossible to deliver that level of water and, anyway, what happens to the millions of litres of water used to try to eliminate such a fire? There is a second proposal in Old Snydale, a beautiful village in my constituency. It is a one-road village, and the people who live there work hard or have worked hard. The proposed site will be almost next to the village, and there is no road access or egress. I do not know how the fire engines and other emergency services would get in. The proposal is completely inappropriate, but the two communities of Heath and Old Snydale are sitting there with planning applications in place and the fire officers expressing great worries about the risk of potential fire and how they will control it. Without national guidance and proper regulations that are sensitive to the prospect of fires, our local planning officers are having to reinvent the wheel, as are other planning officers in other authorities. I support the points made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) in introducing this debate.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I will, but quickly.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is more than 30 years since I was the leader of Leeds city council and made the first proposal for a rapid transit system in that area of West Yorkshire, so I welcome today’s announcement, although it will be a couple of years before the building starts. During the 14 years of Tory Government, the average amount of money per head spent in London was three times larger than the amount of money spent per head on transport in Yorkshire. Of course we want a successful capital city, but that has left the coalfield communities that I represent in real difficulty, with low investment and low productivity. Our wages and salaries are £12,500 per head less than those received on average in the north of London. Will the Minister assure the House that we will look again at funding the regeneration of coalfield communities in the near future?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the comments from the Leader of the House repudiating antisemitism. In South Elmsall in my constituency, there is a clay pit that has been working for 14 years, four years after the licence expired. Last year, an enforcement notice was taken out by the Environment Agency, and now we are hearing of multiple breaches of the licence, but nothing has been done yet to close the operation down. Can we have a debate in Government time on the enforcement powers of the Environment Agency in order that I can express my wish that immediate action now takes place to protect that community?

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The situation in Gaza is utterly intolerable, and the Foreign Secretary has convinced the House of his passion, anger and indignation, but he will know that angry rhetoric means nothing if it is not accompanied by forceful actions. I am not one of those people who say that no action has been taken by the Government, because they have taken action, but it has not had the desired effect. Will the Foreign Secretary now say that he will recognise the state of Palestine, will stop any intelligence-sharing with Israel, and will stop the supply of components that might be used in its war machine?

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  People in my area are totally brassed off with Yorkshire Water, which has failed, repeatedly, to deliver clean water to houses in Upton. It has delivered 5,000 hours of sewage into our local rivers and streams last year, and today we learnt that people are having to boil water in the north of Yorkshire. In the meantime, it is pushing up prices and has pocketed over £1 billion of profits since covid. Can we have a debate on Yorkshire Water’s lamentable progress on delivering clean water? Can we have an opportunity to see whether or not we think privatisation is a failed experiment?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for making that important point, and of course she is right. I go back to this question of the threats to the database, which are not simply the product of my imagination; they are real. First, all data can be monetised, but this database is so large that huge commercial interests are now trying to get access to that health data. I do not want to cause offence to any hon. Members, all of whom I know follow the rules, but it is interesting that nearly £3 million from the private health sector was made available to over 150 different Members of Parliament. I do not suggest that any Member has done anything inappropriate—that would be wrong of me—but one wonders how almost £3 million was found by a private sector that has no commercial interest in pursuing those investments. Secondly, on commercial interests, will the Minister confirm that at no stage will any data or any other aspect of the NHS be up for sale as part of negotiations with the United States on a trade deal? Will the Government provide some guidance on that? If the House reflects on private sector interests—which are not necessarily in the best interests of humanity—and how they make money, there is an interesting thought about health insurance. A party represented in the House is led by an individual who has suggested that we should end the way that we fund the NHS and replace it with an insurance system. If the insurance industry got access to the data held on all of us by the NHS, they would be able to see the genome of each person or of groups of people, and provide differential rates of insurance according to people’s genetic make-up. That is a serious threat. I do not think the party that has recently entered the House has thought that through, but companies providing insurance could commercialise that data. That is one reason we must never follow the track towards a national insurance system to replace the NHS. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House that we will not be privatising the NHS, and I welcome that statement. Reference has already been made to Palantir—the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) mentioned it earlier—and the contract that we inherited from the previous Government. It is extraordinary that Palantir, a company that has deep roots in the United States defence establishment, should be handling the data of millions of people, when its chair has said that he is completely opposed to the central principle of the NHS and that he effectively wants a private health system in the UK. How could a £500 million contract to handle our personal data have been handed over to such a company, led by a person whose purpose seems to be to destroy the principles of our NHS? How our data is handled should be our decision, in the United Kingdom. The Information Commissioner says that it is important that this precious and vital data, which is personal to each of us, should be protected against any possibility of cyber-attacks. However, there has already been a cyber-attack. Qilin—the way I am pronouncing it makes it sound as if someone is trying to commit murder, but there may be another way of saying it—is a Russian cyber-criminal group that obtained access to 400 GB of private information held by a company dealing with pathology testing. That is an enormous amount of data. Qilin attempted to extort from the company that held the data a financial interest. I do not know whether enough provision is made in the Bill for the protection of our data, so I suggest that there should be a new public interest test, with a report to Parliament within six months, which we can all debate and then examine whether the legislation has gone far enough. Finally, the Information Commissioner says three things. First, the database must retain public confidence. Media discussions and opinion polling show that people are losing confidence that their personal data is secure, and I understand why that should be the case. Secondly, data should be properly protected and built from the beginning with proper safeguards against cyber-attacks. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Bill refers to an effective exemption for scientific research. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) said, private companies, and perhaps US companies, might use the idea of promoting scientific research as a fig leaf to hide their search for profit from the precious commodity—data—that we have because we created our NHS. That is a very dangerous thought, and the Information Commissioner says he is not convinced that the definition of scientific research in the Bill is sufficiently strong to protect us from predatory activity by other state actors or private companies.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that very serious point. When the clinicians—whose duty is to protect their patients—say they are not convinced about the safety of data being handed over to a central database, we have to listen to their reactions. I do not intend to press my new clause to the vote, but it is important that we continue to debate this matter, because this enormous database—which can contribute to the general welfare of all humanity—must be protected in such a way that it retains confidence and ensures the security of the whole system. With that, I leave the discussion to continue on other matters.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have tabled new clause 18, which is about health and instituting a new public interest test. There is an existing test, but it is not very accessible or useful nowadays. I will explain why. Probably the largest—or the most sensitive—database in the United Kingdom is the one held by the NHS. Almost every human being in our country is on a file somewhere, hopefully for beneficial and clinical reasons, in the NHS. I have had a series of medical issues in the last few months, and I am astonished by how much data is held about me. That will be the same for all of us, I guess. That database is filled with the most vital, private and intimate details about all our lives, and if it is going to be sustained, it is important that it retains the confidence of patients and of citizens as a whole. The truth is that the Information Commissioner is not convinced that the Bill goes far enough in protecting us and the NHS data, and if the Minister has time at the end, I hope he will be able to comment on whether he is persuaded by the Information Commissioner that we should move further. This data, which is intimate and private, as I have just said, can also be the basis of major advances in human welfare. We can imagine all sorts of ways that our interests as human beings are being advanced by the use of that data every day. I am thinking, for example, of the search for a covid vaccine, which was led by a British scientist and partly based on the data that was available from the NHS. We should be celebrating that—that scientific research is essential—but there is a threat to this database as well, and in my view it comes from two separate sources. First, there are hostile—or even friendly—state actors. Secondly, there are private interests who want to use the data not for human welfare, though that might be a fig leaf that they use, but for private profit. That cannot be right, given what that data has been created for.

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Pharmacies play a key role in communities in rural areas such as mine, but it is deeply frustrating when the supply chain breaks down and a pharmacy cannot deliver its medicine. Can the Minister tell me where we are now with the supply chain? Will she also thank all the heroic workers up and down the country who are doing their very best to deliver medicines, and will she thank in particular the 400 Superdrug workers in my constituency who are trying to make the supply chain work?

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

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I support his amendments. The fact is that millions of innocent people whose behaviour has attracted no suspicion at all will be subject to intrusion into their bank accounts. Is it not odd that there is also access to bank accounts for the £40 billion of tax unpaid by tax avoiders, but that power is rarely used? In the last year for which I have seen figures, 300,000 people were suspected of tax avoidance, but only 1,000 had their banks investigated. Is it not the case that this legislation appears to treat wealthy tax avoiders differently from the poor?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Edward. I thank the Petitions Committee for arranging the debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her powerful opening speech. While I am in the business of thanking people, let me thank the tens of thousands of WASPI women who I have met around the country over the years, fighting for what they see to be justice. I agree with them. That organisation will not simply disappear, and the Government cannot simply ignore it—they will not be allowed to. The WASPI women have many friends and allies in this place on both sides of the House who will work with them to try to secure justice. When I voted for the reimbursement of the WASPI women the other day, I did so with two thoughts in my mind. The first was that there is something going wrong with the way we govern our country. Our governing class has lost touch with the people in general. It is very important that we begin to think hard about why that has happened and what we do about it. The first step must be that politicians say what they mean and mean what they say. I told the WASPI women in my constituency, and everywhere else I have met them, that I would back them until they get justice. I will continue to do so. Beyond individual politicians, the structures of our politics are no longer working properly. The ombudsman was set up especially to allow citizens who feel an injustice to go to an organisation separate from the state to pursue justice. How can that organisation, which is there to give voice to people, be ignored by a Government of whichever side? This debate should not be about finger pointing between the parties, but let us be clear that previous Governments introduced these measures and failed to implement the ombudsman’s report, so it is a problem for the whole House. After thinking about changing our politics, my second thought was about social justice. It is not fair that women were told at the last possible moment, with the state sitting on a report for 28 months, that their financial arrangements would change. I had a look at what happened in Spain: the Government increased the retirement age to 67, but they did it over 14 years. That allowed people to make their own financial plans about their circumstances. Each person knew what was coming in due course. The British state, of course, because of the gap between the public and the governing class, failed to do such a thing. Let me give one constituency case of a woman who came to see me. She was 58, had worked all her life and had saved a small amount of money, working hard and not earning very much. Her mum and dad were seriously ill, but she had enough money saved to get through to being 60, so she retired and went to look after them, only to discover to her horror that she would have to wait for years for the pension to come in. The money she had saved was not sufficient. Next, sadly, her mum and dad died, and she was left with no support or income of any kind—no carer’s allowance, nothing. She was left in total poverty, as a result of the state’s failure to say what would happen to her in her life. The state cannot be allowed to make decisions that transform people’s lives in such a way through no fault of their own—people who have worked and paid tax all their life. Millions of women have suffered in their own individual way, and all of us will have heard lots of stories about that. There are 6,170 WASPI women in my constituency alone; my majority is 6,600. Members can work that out for themselves—look at the numbers. Each one of those women will have family members who feel a burning sense of injustice too. But it should not be about us and saving our seats; it should be about what is right, about justice and about a different kind of politics entirely. It seems to me that options were available, but the then Government ignored them. There could have been a proper transition. Now we have an ombudsman’s report that has made clear recommendations and that imposes an obligation on us—every Member of this House—to implement them. We must do that. Let me make one final point—

• 25 Feb 2025 · Warm Home Discount · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the Conservative party left this country dependent on global fossil fuel supplies, which both burn the planet and are damaging in terms of price controls. However, the Tories left something else as well: a rigged energy market, which gave £480 billion to the energy industry yet left 8 million households—probably 17 million people—in fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their income on energy. It is therefore welcome that the Minister has today announced an additional £150 for the warm home discount, but that, as I understand it, is a one-off payment for next winter. A £150 one-off payment will not resolve the underlying problem—today, the regulator has increased the cap by £111 or £108, depending on how it is calculated, per year on an ongoing basis. I welcome the Government’s announcement and recognise the Minister’s commitment to changing the way that things work. However, will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that the Government intend to end this rigged market, which works in favour of the profiteers, and tackle the scourge of fuel poverty, while at the same time securing a just transition to clean energy?

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

  More

  I will briefly.

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

  More

  I thank everybody for contributing. The House will have heard the Minister’s passion and commitment. I was particularly interested in what she said about warm homes—that she had heard heartbreaking stories and was determined to drive down fuel poverty. Although there was much that was good in her remarks, there were elements missing. In truth, our society is deeply dysfunctional; it needs structural change and a rupture with the existing arrangements. The fact that billions of pounds of profits are made in the energy sector while millions of people are left in poverty leads me to one conclusion: those who drive people into poverty by driving up the prices must pay for the fact that so many people are in poverty, while we get on with retrofitting houses. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

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

  More

  I will, but briefly. There are a lot of people who want to speak.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady has made her point. The House probably knows my views on the winter fuel allowance, but I had better move on before I get myself into trouble. One in four households in Fitzwilliam and Kinsley in my constituency, where miners once provided the heat for our country, are now living in fuel poverty as a result of changes over the past few years. There are two definitions of fuel poverty. The first is the Government’s rule, which was changed under the Tory Government in 2015. Under that definition, an estimated 3 million households in England alone are in fuel poverty, but it requires both that the household is in poverty and that the house is inadequately insulated.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered fuel poverty in England. I am looking forward to speaking in this debate under your chairpersonship, Mr Efford. I am sure you will be fair but firm—fair with us and firm with the other side. We meet today to debate what I regard as a very serious issue. It is good to see so many people present, all well-brushed, shaved, toothbrushed and all the other things one does in the morning. I hope we all had a good breakfast. It is great to see everyone here. This is a serious debate about a serious underlying problem, which affects millions of people, as we will hear. We meet today with the temperature forecast, at least in my patch in Yorkshire—God’s own country, as we call it—to reach minus 1° at the weekend, which will cause great problems for those people who are living in fuel poverty. I want to share one thing with the House from my personal experience. I grew up in a property that was later condemned as a slum and demolished. I remember my brother and I living in that unheated house—there was no heating at all apart from one coal fire. In winter, it was perishing, and it has left me with an enduring feeling that people living in the conditions that I saw should be better supported by a society that claims to be the sixth wealthiest in the world. With that background, I want to speak briefly about fuel poverty in England. Let me say another preparatory thing. The incoming Government—although they have now been in place for some time—faced the most difficult inheritance for dealing with fuel poverty, given all the other fiscal problems that we have heard much about. Last week’s announcement that they will address some fuel poverty issues was welcome, but I have one question about their proposals for private landlords. Many tenants of private landlords live in fuel poverty, because the properties that are being rented are not properly thermally insulated. The Government have now said that private landlords must bring their properties up to standard, but the fear in some people’s minds is that the landlords will simply use that as an excuse to bump up rents further, because they have had to pay to make properties more efficient. But they chose to rent out properties knowing that they were not properly efficient. I understand when tenants say to me and others that that is not right. When the Government made their decision on the winter fuel allowance, I received about 1,000 emails, and in many cases they were heartbreaking. It is not often the case that the voices of ordinary folk get heard in this place, so I want to refer briefly to three or four of those comments. I received an email from someone who has something called post-polio syndrome—they had polio as a child. A person with that syndrome finds it difficult to keep warm. I spoke to them and we said, “Look, it’s possible to go into one of the local community or church halls”—which every single village in my constituency now has—“in order to keep warm,” but the response was, “That’s fine, but I’ve got to keep the house warm in any event, because when I go back into a cold home, I have this problem with the syndrome.” I had another communication from someone with asthma. He has managed to keep it under control for most of the years, but he caught the bug. It took him more than a month to shake it off, and he was struggling with his asthma. He could not get warm at all, in spite of wrapping himself in blankets. He tells me that the house he lives in has a roof that is more than 70 years old. He keeps on getting it patched up with the help of his family, because he has no money; he cannot afford a new one, and he cannot get help from anybody. The insurance company says that it is wear and tear, so it will not help to pay for the roof. All the heating he puts on is escaping straight into the atmosphere. I also had a letter from a lady in Normanton. Her total income is £221 a week—she is a pensioner—and she pays £171 a week just for her mortgage and council tax, so she is left with only £50 a week to pay for heating, food and all the other necessities of life. How is that woman meant to survive in those circumstances?

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

  More

  I am not going to take any more interventions, because so many people want to speak. So many people with houses that are thermally insulated, but who still remain in poverty, are excluded from that 3 million figure. A more accurate figure is one that only looks at whether a household is living in fuel poverty, and under that definition 8.9 million households in England alone are living in fuel poverty. If we say that there are two people in each household, we are talking about 17 million or 18 million people waking up in the morning in an unheated house, like I did living in the attic with my brother, with ice on the inside of the windows. That is unbearable to think about in one of the richest countries in the world. Ill health is a direct consequence of inadequately heated houses. Whichever figure is used, between 10% and 20% of all excess winter deaths in England are caused by unheated or cold houses. That is a disgrace. One in four children living in a cold home suffer mental health problems, which does not surprise me when they are living in such conditions. Let me turn quickly to the causes, which we could debate for a long time. It seems to me that there are two separate issues. One is the prices that energy companies charge, which are, frankly, driven by profits and greed, and the other is poor insultation. I will leave it to others to speak about the impact of uninsulated houses on the climate because I do not have time to say everything. On prices, it is a scandal that between 2022 and 2023 the price of energy increased by 27%, leaving almost a quarter of a million more households in fuel poverty. The other day, when the Bank of England decided to cut interest rates by 0.25 percentage points, it commented that it expects inflation to increase because of rising energy prices. That is a disastrous position for so many people in our country, which will drive more into fuel poverty. I will quote Warm This Winter, the campaign group that represents 60 different charities. Its authoritative view on energy suppliers is that there is “clearly an obscene level of profits being made”. The whole energy industry needs to be looked at, from extraction through to providers. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition said: “While consumers have suffered in cold damp homes this winter, energy firms’ boardrooms have been celebrating further bumper profits.” I do not see how that is acceptable in a society that claims to be one of the richest in the world, but there we are. Let me turn to the building stock itself. I am a builder by trade; I was a heating engineer and plumber and worked in the building industry. It is shocking, when there are still people with building skills out of work, that the building stock of our country is so poorly thermally insulated. Just over 40% of all residences—houses and flats—in Britain do not meet the Government’s minimum standards. The implications for the planet are clear, and others might want to talk about that. The Government inherited a number of programmes trying to tackle fuel poverty. The previous Government had moved to providing smart meters. They are useful for consumers to see and control the amount of energy they are consuming, but they do not help to keep the house warm. That initiative by the Conservative Government distracted people from the real problem of low incomes and high energy costs, driven by profit-seeking. There were three programmes in place. The energy company obligation required energy companies to begin to tackle the problem. That started well in 2020 with 113,000 houses, but by last year that number had gone down to 38,000. It collapsed when the energy companies, which were taking all that money from tenants and residents, failed to deliver. The second programme, the warm home discount, applies to only 11% of the population in England. Only 15% of all the houses that need attention have been fully insulated. That is where we are today. I think it is a scandal. It is wrong morally, economically, financially—in any way we can imagine—that people who have worked all their lives and are now pensioners, who had a reasonable prospect of living a satisfactory life, are living in homes that are poorly heated. Children are living in poorly heated homes in which at least one adult is working on low pay—another problem is that bosses are increasingly paying low pay. Those houses ought not to be left in that condition. I hope the Minister will give us some confidence that we are going somewhere. It takes time for the Government to change direction, but we need to move fast. Finally, let me pose three questions to the Minister, who I am pleased to see in her place. First, where are the Government going on fuel poverty—is it a high priority for them? Secondly, what is she going to do about the energy company obligation, which is failing? Finally, we often discuss the idea that the energy companies should have a social tariff for the lowest paid and those in the most difficulty. The country has decided that there should be a social tariff just for the internet—people living in difficult situations pay less for the internet—so it is extraordinary that we do not have one for energy production. I believe that there is a consultation on a social tariff ongoing, so will the Minister tell the House exactly where we are going on that? There is much more to say, but quite a number of Members want to speak, so I will draw my comments to a conclusion.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and of course, what she is saying is correct. The lady who I was just talking about told me that living on £50 a week is practically impossible. I imagine that there are some people in this Chamber, modest as we all are, who spend more than £50 on a meal. Think about that woman in Normanton left with only that amount of money to live on. Her final comment was poignant. She speaks for the 1,000 people who wrote to me when she says: “For many, retirement now means misery and trying to make ends meet. In the near future no doubt, I will have a choice like many before me—heat or eat. And I’ll just be another statistic. That is something no one would look forward to,” having worked all their life. She speaks for millions of people.

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

  More

  I wish to make a few points. First, it would have been impossible not to note the zeal of the Secretary of State when she was banging on the Dispatch Box and talking about fraud and loss to the taxpayer, and she is right to do that. We, on this side of the House at least, believe in public expenditure, and therefore there is a duty on us to ensure that every single penny is spent in an appropriate manner. So where it is wasted or stolen or fraud is going on, we should bear down on it. However, although the Secretary of State started off with that zeal and passion in talking about the gangs and others, she talked most about benefit claimants. Although the Bill sets up powers for the fraud authority, it deals largely with the question of fraud in the benefit system. But the title of the Bill mentions both fraud and error, and not enough time has been spent in this debate on the nature of error, which is far bigger than can be easily acknowledged. I looked at the figures for PIP. Between 2019 and 2024 some one in four cases for alleged fraud by PIP recipients were dropped before reaching appeal, indicating the decision had lapsed because the Department had decided in favour of the appellant. That indicates the scale of the error that this Bill also wants to address. I am going to refer to a couple of cases in a moment or two, but at the core of this Bill is the creation, effectively, of a partnership between the state and the private banks, and the Bill does not make clear what that partnership will look like. I hope that we get some clarity on that before the Bill reaches Committee. The banks themselves have said that they are very worried about this Bill, because they have a statutory duty, imposed by this House, to make sure that they deal properly with vulnerable clients. The banks have said there is a contradiction between the contents of this Bill and the obligations that fall on them and their duty to treat people who are vulnerable in a proper way. I want to reflect on that briefly. Let me give the House a case from my own constituency that is symptomatic of a wider problem. A couple were referred to my office. They both had learning difficulties, both were illiterate and innumerate, and they found it impossible on their own to fill in the dozens and dozens of questions which the forms require people to fill in to get access to the benefits. So they were helped to put the form together by people employed to look after such people. The DWP then decided, years later, that it had made an error and had overpaid the couple by a large amount. This error came to light as a result of a review of some kind in the Department. So here is a very poor and vulnerable couple who were unable to fill in the form on their own and who had been helped by professionals, and what did the state do? It sent them a bill for £20,000. All Members will have a great deal of empathy—they would not be in this job otherwise—so we can imagine the state that couple were in when they received a bill from the state to repay £20,000. It was discovered after they came to my office that they had in fact filled in all the forms correctly; this was a computer error caused by someone failing to key in some of the information that had been provided to the DWP. Neither the council which was helping them nor their support workers spotted the fact they were being overpaid; nobody spotted it, so this went on for a number of years and the sum reached £20,000. A deeply vulnerable couple were left in that situation. Eventually they encountered a local councillor in my constituency who referred them to me. We went through the whole thing and managed to make an appeal on their behalf. But this Bill gives people only 28 days once they have received an order to pay. It took us longer than 28 days to resolve this once it had got into my office. I just say to the Secretary of State that 28 days is not long enough in these complicated cases for people to produce the evidence to show they are a victim of error rather than they have committed a fraud. There was a presumption by the state that they had committed a fraud of £20,000, totally incorrectly, it turned out. I worry that the Bill will put people like my constituents, and I imagine constituents of every Member in this House, in the same position. My constituents were fortunate to find an MP, but many people in that situation would not know how to find their way through the system. That raises the question I have referred to about the banks. The banks have a statutory duty to protect vulnerable customers. How will they exercise that duty when they are being required to provide information to the DWP about the financial activities of various individuals banking with them? On the subject of vulnerability, Disability Rights UK tells us that one third of all claimants of legacy benefits have mental health problems. I imagine that most of those people would be regarded as vulnerable by the banks and by every humane person in this House. One therefore wonders just exactly how we will reconcile the statutory duty on the banks with what they are required to do in relation to this Bill. We are giving powers to this fraud authority. I personally am in favour of tackling fraud, as I have said—I am a Yorkshireman, and I do not like spending money. I do not like money being spent wastefully by the state either, and when I was the leader of Leeds city council, everyone knew I was strong on waste. Finally on vulnerability, have the Government commissioned and received an equality impact assessment? If they have, can that be placed in the Commons Library, because the Bill will clearly have an impact on people who are extremely vulnerable? I think something somewhere in the Department will refer to that impact assessment. I will make a couple of final points. It is suggested that the Bill will save £300 million a year by tackling benefit fraud. That is a large amount of money, but we can compare it with the £10 billion of fraud on personal protective equipment provided during covid, the £16 billion lost to the taxpayer in fraudulent covid schemes, the £5.5 billion a year of tax evasion, or the £6 billion of other illegal activities against HMRC. The £300 million is important, but it is not the largest amount of fraud that is taking place. The fraud authority is getting new powers and will be staffed up. How will it choose among the disproportionate amounts by which the state is being defrauded by various different agencies, by private individuals and, frankly, by some gangsters, too? Will the staffing be allocated according to the prejudices of politicians—whichever politicians are then in charge—or will it be allocated proportionately to the loss to the taxpayer incurred through different forms of fraud? My final point is on the Information Commissioner. The Secretary of State suddenly announced that she received a letter today—it would be interesting to read it—but the Information Commissioner had been suggesting that the powers were disproportionate. We need to see the letter, and hopefully it will go into the Library or somewhere. Clause 74, which empowers schedule 3 to the Bill, goes right to the kernel of the problems with this Bill, which could not be clearer. I am worried that it is not apparent how the intervention of banks will be invoked. Schedule 3 allows the banks to be invoked and then for action to take place. Will the bank account of every single citizen in the UK be looked at? That is the view of some campaign groups in society. If so, that is a massive incursion into the liberty that the British people hold dear. If not, how will the banks be asked to identify particular individuals? What process will be gone through? That is not clear, and the Bill does not explain it. I have read clause 74 two or three times, as have many other people. Finally, can we be assured—not necessarily now, but as the Bill progresses through its various stages—exactly how that right of appeal will work? I have just referred to the 28-day cut-off, but will the Secretary of State look again at that? It seems to me that it is slightly too tight.