Football and Dementia

Debate between Grahame Morris and Chris Stephens

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend United West, and I wish her well in her efforts to secure the future of her team. I would like to express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee—to my dear friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his colleagues—for giving us the opportunity to participate in this crucial debate in the House of Commons. I also thank my good friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), as well as the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), for their support in securing Back-Bench time for the debate.

I also want to acknowledge the Professional Footballers’ Association and the invaluable contribution of Dr Judith Gates, who is one of my constituents. Dr Gates is a distinguished academic and educator, renowned for her expertise in chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the condition that has been linked to repetitive head impacts in sport. On Monday, in Ferryhill in County Durham, we will witness the launch of Head Safe Football, a new charity with a specific focus on brain-related issues in football. Dr Gates spearheaded that initiative at the request of the footballing community, aiming to provide emotional support, evidence-based knowledge and up-to-date research for footballers and their families.

Dr Gates’ dedication to this cause is deeply personal, because she is the spouse of the former England and Middlesborough footballer Bill Gates. Bill was diagnosed with dementia after a career that included a training programme involving hundreds of headers every day. Unfortunately, that led to headaches with migraines, and caused him to retire from football aged only 30. Bill was a renowned centre-half and is remembered for his prowess in the air, but his legacy is promoting Head Safe Football and raising awareness of the link between repetitive head impacts and CTE. I also commend the Scottish Football Association, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber did, on its proactive stance on addressing CTE and other brain diseases that are caused through football. Its efforts—including research initiatives, concussion protocols, restrictions on heading in youth football and limits on repetitive heading in training—have set a commendable example.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the link between repetitive heading of a football and brain diseases. Several people have suggested to me that that link is theoretical, or that there is some doubt about it, but there is absolutely no doubt: there is a huge amount of evidence, both at home and from abroad, and I will mention some of those academic studies later in my speech. My late father was a coalminer, and sadly, miners were subjected to many industrial diseases including pneumoconiosis, chest diseases, and vibration white finger through the use of pneumatic power tools. Many of my constituents worked in the textile industry—in the rag trade—and many of those women machinists suffered Dupuytren’s contracture as a result of their work.

All those conditions are recognised as occupational diseases.

I am looking at the Minister; I do not know whether he has the power to direct—or he could ask—the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to look at the issue. Until CTE is formally recognised as an industrial disease, the compensation that the people involved and their families so richly deserve will not be available to them. We often focus on the top-flight celebrity professional footballer, but many footballers who do not play at the highest level have been similarly exposed to repetitive brain injury. They are living in hardship and we have a duty of care to them.

I want to mention again the study that the University of Glasgow carried out quite recently, in October 2019. It revealed a clear connection between professional football players and neurodegenerative diseases. The research compared the mortality rates of more than 7,600 former Scottish footballers with a general population sample of more than 230,000 individuals—a very large sample. The findings indicated that the mortality rate due to neurodegenerative diseases among the former professional footballers was three and a half times higher, with notable increases in Alzheimer’s disease, motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s disease.

Another study, by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, published in The Lancet here in the UK, showed that footballers are 50% more likely to develop dementia compared with the general population. The research involved comparative analysis of the health records of 6,000 top division Swedish players and over 56,000 non-footballers. The study also explored the contrast between outfield players and goalkeepers. Researchers discovered that, as we might expect, outfield players faced a much higher risk of Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia compared with the general population. In contrast, goalkeepers, who seldom head the ball, showed no increase in Alzheimer’s, dementia or similar conditions.

The World Health Organisation says that between 5% and 8% of the general population over the age of 60 have dementia. However, the figure is different for England’s greatest ever team, the 1966 World cup winning team—we are not being partisan in this debate, but that victory was achieved under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government; I think we also won the Eurovision song contest that year. Research carried out by “Sky Sports” news found that 46%—almost half—of that World cup winning team were suffering from some degenerative brain condition such as Alzheimer’s disease.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my good friend for giving way. I had actually forgotten that England won the World cup in 1966; it is not something we hear often.

The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with the issue of scepticism. Does he agree that many former wingers actually worked the connection out? They were crossing the ball and worked out that the high-profile cases involved either centre halves heading the ball out or centre forwards heading the ball in.

[Grahame Morris]

That is a good point. Academic studies have identified that goalkeepers are not at any more risk than any other member of the population, but centre halves and centre forwards certainly have been. I am talking not just about the 90 minutes of football, but the many hours of training—consistently heading the ball. The general community and football authorities have a duty of care to the people who are suffering.

I want to mention another academic study, from Boston University in the United States. It identified CTE in young amateur athletes who played contact sports. After examining post mortem the brains of 152 participants who had died under the age of 30, it found that 41.4% had signs of CTE. More than 70% of those diagnosed were amateur athletes. The figures are shocking. It is imperative to pursue further research to determine not whether there is a link—there is; that is not in dispute—but whether there is a safe threshold for heading the ball. The ideal level is zero, but football authorities must undertake comprehensive research to fulfil their duty of care to players and establish a head-safe level.

I am not anti-football; I love our national sport, but I want it to be safe. I want us to recognise our responsibility to former players who are now suffering from these terrible conditions. Players themselves are rightly concerned about the risks associated with heading. A study by the Drake Foundation found that 66% of amateur footballers feared the impact of heading the ball on their health, with 70% advocating for guidelines to restrict heading in training and 48% desiring reduced heading in matches. There is also substantial support for extending rules in youth football, with 56% of parents endorsing restrictions on heading in training for children up to the age of 18.

The onus lies squarely on football authorities to ensure that their protocols and practices prioritise player safety. That includes ongoing research, immediate reductions in heading during training and matches, and a willingness to adapt the game to mitigate risks. There is no doubt that the game has changed. When I was first watching the game, it was much more physical. There were substitutions, but I think only one was allowed. The game has evolved and changed and it is right that it has. There will inevitably be a shift in the way football is played, but such evolution is inherent to the sport.

I hope SNP Members do not mind me mentioning the recent England-Scotland match on Tuesday night; I do not mean to be divisive—[Interruption.] I have forgotten the score already. I am not gloating.

[Chris Stephens]

I just want to put on the record that Scotland do not do too well in football against lesser nations.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

The England-Scotland match was the 150th anniversary of international football, but I am sure it bore little resemblance to the inaugural England-Scotland international game in 1872 in how it was played; I do not just mean the longer shorts and so on. So the game does change and that is not a bad thing. It is critical to recognise that player safety should not be perceived as a threat to the game. Instead, it should be viewed as a new chapter in the ongoing development of a sport that we all cherish.

To safeguard football for generations to come, we must wholeheartedly support the concept of head-safe football. From a Government perspective, the implications are clear: we should adopt a public health approach. The Minister holds a crucial role in funding education and awareness efforts to future-proof football for today and tomorrow. That includes raising awareness about the risks associated with repetitive heading and its links to degenerative brain disease.

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the former West Brom striker, the legend Jeff Astle, who died in 2002 from a neurodegenerative disease associated with heading the ball. The coroner ruled he suffered death through an industrial disease, although it is not identified officially as an industrial disease. It is worth noting that my constituent Dr Judith Gates has diligently lobbied the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council over the past three years to recognise CTE as an industrial disease. Despite presenting extensive and authoritative information and research, the IIAC has unfortunately fallen short and failed in its duty to acknowledge this disease. I hope the Minister will be able to assist in his closing remarks in persuading the IIAC to look at that again. The evidence supporting that recognition is overwhelming and includes numerous peer-reviewed studies and coroner verdicts. It is high time to prompt the IIAC to step on to the pitch and fulfil its responsibilities by acknowledging the issue and taking the necessary actions.

Football holds a special place in our national psyche. It is a sport enjoyed by millions of people each week. It is evident that participation is on the rise. The professional football landscape is evolving, with National League North team South Shields transitioning to a full-time model, signalling growth even in the lower divisions, yet the most remarkable growth lies in the Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship.

The Lionesses have been a source of inspiration for the nation. We have had tremendous success and it is heartening to witness more young girls embracing football and getting involved in active sport. However, as the women’s game expands, it brings new challenges because medical studies indicate that female athletes are almost twice as likely to develop CTE as their male counterparts. I wholeheartedly support the surge in women’s football, but amidst the growth the safety of players remains paramount. Given the additional risks faced by female athletes, I hope the WSL will be a trailblazer in establishing head-safe football.

Football is a tight-knit community, and it must address this issue both now and in the future. Clubs that have prospered thanks to the skills and contributions of players such as Bill Gates, my constituent, have a responsibility to prioritise the wellbeing of their players. It is imperative that we take action to support a generation of players who are currently facing the challenges of degenerative brain diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. With the clear connection between repetitive heading and CTE now established, it is high time we focus on increasing awareness and providing education at all levels of the game. Additionally, we should implement policies and procedures to restrict heading, whether during training sessions, or in actual games.

I ask the Minister to make it clear to the football authorities that this is their opportunity to deliver head-safe football, reducing the risk today and progressing the research to understand if there is a safe level of heading. If as an industry—a multi-billion-pound industry at the highest level—the football authorities do not accelerate their action on this matter, the Minister must be clear that the Government will have no option but to intervene to protect public health.

I would like to end with the words of my constituent Bill Gates, who on his diagnosis told his family, “It is too late for me, but I want to plant a tree, so others can benefit from its shade.” I thank Judith, Bill and the whole family. I will do everything I can to future-proof football for today’s and tomorrow’s players. I hope the Minister will commit to doing the same.

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Chris Stephens

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

There is no such thing as a union baron. The hon. Gentleman is one of the hon. Members who withdrew their labour to sit on the cobblestones, but given his rhetoric tonight, it seems that he wishes to stop others doing so.

Another problem is the likely breach of international law. The use of agency workers to replace striking workers would violate trade unions members’ right to strike, which is safeguarded by International Labour Organisation convention No. 87, article 3; by the European social charter of 1961, article 6, paragraph 4; and by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Indeed, the ILO committee on freedom of association has said:

“The hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term…constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association.”

On 16 June, the Institute of Employment Rights published an article by the great Professor Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College London. He discusses the convention and refers to the Government’s own agreement—the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, which is given effect in UK law via the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. He suggests that the regulations’ revocation of regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 may be unlawful:

“It is at least arguable that these pre-existing powers are constrained by the 2020 Act, s 29 so that they cannot be used in a way that will violate the TCA and the obligations thereunder. If this argument is correct, the government is constrained by its own hand from legislating to revoke regulation 7 by secondary legislation.”

There will be a negative impact on agency workers. Allowing their deployment would put them in a horrible position. They would have to choose between crossing a picket line and turning down an assignment, with the prospect of being denied future work by the agency. Many agency workers, such as supply teachers and bank nurses, will be trade union members themselves. Under the UK’s weak employment laws, agency workers are not protected from suffering a detriment if they refuse an assignment because they do not wish to replace striking workers.

There will also be a negative impact on the agencies themselves. The removal of the ban on the supply of agency workers would mean that employment businesses were forced to become involved in industrial disputes not of their making. That is why agencies themselves oppose the proposals, as others have said. In a joint statement with the TUC, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation urged the Government to leave the current ban in place as a key element of a sustainable national employment relations framework. Part of the reason for that is the realisation by employers and trade unions that disputes come to an end, and there must then be a discussion about how to move forward from that dispute and how to rebuild industrial relations. Neil Carberry, the chief executive of the REC, said:

“The government’s proposal will not work. Agency staff have a choice of roles and are highly unlikely to choose to cross picket lines.”

There is a safety issue. The health and safety of agency workers and the potential impact on public safety is of serious concern to trade unions. Studies suggest that temporary agency workers are exposed to more hazards than others, and have higher rates of workplace injuries and ill health. A simple search of the Health and Safety Executive’s prosecutions over the last five years shows a litany of employer failures: a lack of training of agency workers, a lack of access to protective equipment, and a lack of supervision and monitoring of agency workers to ensure that they understand and are following risk assessments and safe systems of work. Sadly, those failures have resulted in fatal or life-changing injuries among agency workers. We also know from agency workers that their health and safety is often overlooked. When the work involves delivering a public service, that can present risks to the service user or endanger wider public safety.

The Health and Safety Executive and other safety bodies broadly agree that the components of a positive safety culture and successful health and safety management, leading to fewer incidents, include good communication, competence, training and induction, good team working, ability to raise concerns with no detriment, and good worker involvement. The hiring of agency workers to try to disrupt industrial action would not achieve that.

There are also concerns about public safety. Under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers taking on agency workers are responsible for their safety and the safety of the public. The agency placing the worker also has responsibility, and we suggest that failures in safety occur owing to the lack of communication and consultation between the two duty holders, with the safety of the agency worker falling through the gaps. That is borne out by reports from the Health and Safety Executive, which found that about half the recruitment agencies surveyed did not have measures in place to ensure that they were fulfilling their legal obligations.

This proposal is not practical. As was pointed out by Members earlier, there are currently 1.3 million vacancies in the UK , which is a record high. Data shows that the number of candidates available to fill roles has been falling at a record pace for months. In this tight labour market, agency workers are in high demand and can pick and choose the jobs that they take. Are they seriously going to take a job in which they have to cross a picket line in order to get a shift, rather than picking a different one? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) would, but I have to say that he is a unique case.

[Grahame Morris]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many Conservative Members would prefer to turn the clock back to the days of the bond and indentured labour? My grandfather’s father was paid a modest sum as a bond to be an indentured labourer in the mines. It was illegal to go on strike, and if workers did go on strike for better terms and conditions, they were evicted from their homes. It is a disgrace that Conservative Members are trying to turn the clock back to those days.

[Chris Stephens]

Of course, it was Conservative Members’ party that introduced the Master and Servant Act 1823. I could say more about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not.

Rail Strikes

Debate between Grahame Morris and Chris Stephens

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I would like to declare a couple of interests: I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and I serve on the Select Committee on Transport. In fact, I am a member of numerous trade union groups that I am very proud of—the National Union of Journalists, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the bakers’ union, the justice union—and I have the great honour of chairing the Unite parliamentary group. When I first started work—when I had a proper job—I worked on the railways at a time when they were part of British Rail. It was not the RMT in those days; it was the National Union of Railwaymen. That was my first paid employment.

I want to emphasise how important it is that we take the heat out of this situation and think about how we can move forward and get a negotiated settlement. It is absolutely clear that the unions are doing this as a last resort. After two years of talks and discussions, they want to find a resolution to the problems their members face. This issue is not simply about the pay scales for train drivers, although I would say that that is a group of workers we rely on every day—they keep us safe, they are highly skilled and they should be properly rewarded. It is about people who clean the trains, the signalmen and the people who maintain the track. Those are all vital jobs that keep our railways running.

The talks have revealed that the employers—the privately owned train operators and train companies—have an agenda that is being driven by the Government. That will be disastrous for rail workers and passengers alike.

It has become clear that the Government, and the Treasury in particular, are calling the shots and directing employers. They are, in fact, underwriting the costs of the strike. The Transport Secretary referred to modernisation and safety-critical infrastructure, but what we are looking at here are: fewer staff on trains, including the removal of guards and catering staff; cuts to cleaning; and the closure of nearly all ticket offices. That is absolutely no good at all for anybody with disabilities or for individuals who are vulnerable.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way to my good and honourable friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Surely the fact that the industrial action ballot has overcome the threshold that the Conservative party put in legislation tells us the depth of feeling among RMT members on these issues.

[Grahame Morris]

The feeling is very strong. I believe the margin was 71%, which is well above the Government’s threshold. Indeed, the treatment of the RMT Union and its members seems to be part of a wider agenda to weaken employment rights. I was one of many Members, including my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and my hon. and right hon. Friends around me today, who were pressing the case for the Government to act on fire and rehire.

I was in the joint hearing of the Transport and the Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committees when we were taking testimony from the bad bosses of P&O Ferries who were boasting about their lack of consultation and their intention to drive down terms and conditions. We expect rather more from our own Government when it comes to the way in which the railway is being run. It is a huge and important national asset.

I want to put on record, so that there is no doubt, my solidarity with the RMT Union and with all the trade unions. Basic rights that govern pay and conditions at work were hard fought for and they were won through collective action; they were not handed out freely.

Let us not forget some of those appalling accidents at Ladbroke Grove, at Paddington and so on. One of the proposals that has been put forward is for 3,000 redundancies among people who maintain the tracks—

In-work Poverty

Debate between Grahame Morris and Chris Stephens

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered in-work poverty.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Before I start, I want to pass on our best wishes, from all sides of the House, to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who I am sorry to hear has covid. I am sure that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), will do an admirable job in her place.

Work should always be a pathway and route out of poverty. The fact that the phrase “in-work poverty” even exists is a damning indictment of successive Conservative Government policies over the past 12 years. The Government are clearly making life harder for working people, as I will illustrate with a number of examples. I am conscious that a large number of Members want to participate in this important debate, so I will truncate my remarks, but I want to illustrate my argument with some examples from a number of sectors.

Clearly, one of the issues is the increase in taxes and national insurance, which is in direct contravention of a commitment that the Conservatives made in their last general election manifesto. We are also having to deal with the problem of the huge increases in energy prices that the Government, via Ofgem, have allowed to take place. Members may recall that I had a question for the Prime Minister last Wednesday in order to contrast the position of the French Government, who have capped energy price rises at 4%, with that of our Government, who have capped energy price rises at an incredible 54%. That has had a huge impact on people who are in work.

Fuel poverty, food poverty, energy poverty, housing poverty and child poverty are all measures of economic failure, and they are all on the increase. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in eight workers are struggling to make ends meet. If work guaranteed a decent standard of living, the UK would be going through a golden age of prosperity. Instead, the Conservative party has delivered successive year-on-year policies of austerity over a decade. The social security safety net has given way, after a decade of wear and tear.

Without the most basic protection, a decade of pay cuts and wage stagnation has left working families ill prepared. Many have no savings at all, and people certainly have far less resilience to cope with the current cost of living crisis. In the workplace, we have seen employment rights deliberately weakened, a dramatic increase in the number of zero-hours contracts, and an expansion of the gig economy, with a growing proportion of working people in insecure employment.

I also want to mention the appalling employment practices. Poor employment practices, such as fire and rehire, are rife, even with very profitable and long-established companies, some of which are household names. Despite recent and repeated assurances from Ministers at the Dispatch Box—often condemning the practice—they have done nothing to outlaw the practice of fire and rehire by rogue employers. The Government have disregarded the interests of working people and dismissed the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

The key workers we all clapped for and honoured during lockdown are bearing the brunt of our low-wage, poverty-pay economy. Figures produced by the TUC reveal that 43% of north-east key workers—over 173,000 people —earn below £10 an hour. Personally, I do not think that £15 an hour is an unreasonable ask in this day and age.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my honourable comrade for giving way. Is he as surprised as I am at a recent article, published by The Herald newspaper and The Ferret website, showing that 20% of jobs advertised on the Department for Work and Pensions website paid under the national minimum wage rate of £9.50? The Department really needs to launch an inquiry into why that is the case.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. It should concern us all when the DWP is advertising jobs that fall below the minimum standard and even the limited protections afforded to working people.

We know that even a modest increase in the minimum wage to £10 an hour would transform the lives of key workers, including one in three care workers—so many of us applaud care workers for their contribution, particularly during the pandemic—and 173,000 childcare workers. It would raise the incomes of over half a million people.

Workers across the country are struggling to feed their families and heat their homes. I will give some examples, including one I received from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Like many of us, I have met the cleaners employed by the Churchill Group who are fighting for a real living wage of £15 an hour. I will also highlight the fact that the GMB trade union is campaigning against real-terms pay cuts for nearly 150,000 ASDA staff, and the ongoing University and College Union strike in the university sector. The pattern is the same: terms, conditions, wages and pension rights are being eroded; workers who try to negotiate are blocked, ignored and blamed; while well-paid directors shrug their shoulders with uninterest, often while picking up huge bonuses.

The workers who kept our supermarket shelves stacked during the pandemic are now struggling to feed their own families. I was shown a survey by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union, which was very illuminating; it was conducted by the union of its members, who are in the food sector. It found that between February and March 2021, 40% of those surveyed had eaten less than they should have eaten because they did not have sufficient cash; 35% had eaten less than they should have to ensure that other members of their household got a meal; and 21% relied on goods and contributions from family and friends to make ends meet. These are people who are in work—shift workers who supplied the country with bread during the pandemic.

I will also highlight the excellent Right to Food Campaign, which was mentioned in this very Chamber yesterday. The campaign was set up and promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and it has been endorsed by my own union, Unite. It seeks to make the Government responsible for addressing the raging income inequalities and the broken benefit system that have pushed so many people into a spiral of poverty.

I saw a quote on social media just before this debate and thought how relevant it is to what we are discussing, because we are talking about the cost of living crisis. The country has more than enough resources and more than enough money to keep everyone warm, housed, free from hunger and properly clothed; in fact, the country has enough wealth to do that a hundred times over. So it is not really a cost of living crisis; what we have is an inequality crisis.

I think the Government should scrap some of the provisions that currently apply to those in receipt of universal credit. Let us not forget that a substantial number of those in receipt of universal credit are in work—they are the working poor. The five-week wait before they can receive a penny is a major contributing factor to the huge increase in the number of people having to turn to food banks.

We need to start putting people before profits. Sadly—it is lamentable, really—poverty has become the norm in Britain; it has become normalised. Yards away from where we are having this debate, homeless people are freezing on the streets and sleeping rough for want of a home. Children go hungry. We see Members of Parliament, particularly Members of the Conservative party, posing for photographs at food banks, and I think the irony must be lost on them that those food banks exist only because of the policies that this Government have promoted.

To return to energy prices, the French Government have capped cost rises at 4%, Germany has cut tariffs and Spain has introduced a windfall tax on the energy companies. But here in Britain, standing charges are doubling and the energy price cap will see energy bills rise by 54%—that is £700 more on average—for our families. Peterlee is the biggest town in my constituency, and EDF, one of the big six energy companies, has many customers there. It is interesting to contrast what is happening in Peterlee with what is happening in Paris. Will the Minister explain why French state-owned EDF can cap cost increases at 4% in Paris while my constituents in Peterlee face a 54% increase in their bills?

Tax rises are exacerbating the cost of living crisis as many in our nation struggle with rising prices. I happened to meet a farmer last weekend, and we chatted about a number of issues. He grows oilseed rape and wheat, and he said that the price of wheat is doubling, and that the price of fertiliser is doubling as well, which will cost him an extra £10,000 a year. He reliably informed me that the cost of wheat, which was £150 a tonne, is now £300 a tonne. That will filter through into dramatic increases in food costs for staples such as bread. The prices of many basic staples, including margarine, tomatoes and apples have increased by as much as 45% in the past year.

Figures from the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network show that more than 3 million food bank parcels were distributed in 2020-21. I tried to get the figures for the food banks operating in my constituency —at the community centre in Dawdon and at the East Durham Trust in Peterlee—but they are not part of the Trussell Trust, so the excellent work that they do is not included in those statistics, meaning that the figure is even bigger.

Average petrol and diesel prices are £1.61 and £1.73 per litre respectively, but regional public transport is expensive and unreliable after a decade of neglect, meaning that families have no alternative to protect against increasing fuel costs. The energy cap is up at 54%, and further increases are in the pipeline. The Conservative party once promised to be the “greenest government ever”, but the Public Accounts Committee recently described the green homes grant as a “slam dunk fail”.

House prices are rising beyond the reach of first-time buyers; sky-high rental costs leave little at the end of the month for deposits and savings; and we as a country have abandoned council housing, which is quite disgraceful—that social housing delivered low-cost homes for the post-war generation.

Nelson Mandela said:

“poverty…is man-made and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings… Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life… While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.”

Once again, we see that poverty is a political choice. It is a Conservative political choice, and one that this Government should be ashamed of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see a friend of the worker in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank my good friend and comrade the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for making an excellent speech to kick off the debate. The contributions—with the possible exception of one—have been very impressive indeed.

I want to make a number of points. First, in-work poverty and inadequate living standards remain the norm for far too many people on these islands. We urge the UK Government to look at the minimum wage rates in the country. They need to not only amend the definition of a worker, but go further by strengthening protection for workers.

The UK is experiencing the highest levels of in-work poverty this century, which disproportionately impacts groups facing high living costs, such as lone parents—the majority of whom are women—disabled people and people with caring responsibilities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that was mentioned earlier shows that around two thirds—the actual figure is 68%—of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in a household where at least one adult is in work. The figure has never been higher since records began in 1996, so we now have the highest ever levels of in-work poverty. For too many people, low-paid jobs offer no opportunities to progress to better work and better wages, and far too many people are in insecure work with unpredictable hours and incomes, which is something that I want to touch on. That is, of course, in stark contrast to the situation in Scotland.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points, but I wonder what impact the Government’s decision to close jobcentres will have on constituencies such as mine and perhaps 60 others. What impact will that have on alleviating in-work poverty and on encouraging people who are out of work into paid employment?

[Chris Stephens]

It will increase in-work poverty. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government tried to close half the jobcentres in the city of Glasgow. People there are having to spend more money and go further in order to get to a jobcentre to see whether they can get better work.

As we have a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions in front of us, I want to point out that a number of people claiming universal credit are in work. We have a situation—the Minister responded to a written question on this issue—whereby half of DWP claimants have their universal credit claims deducted. I would argue that that is a poverty tax. In some cases, £60 a month is taken away from someone’s universal credit claim. Universal credit is supposed to be a subsistence benefit that is paid at a rate that people can live on. If we take £60 a month away from them, people have to choose whether to heat or eat. That really needs to end. Advances need to be replaced by an up-front grant or a starter payment, as we argued on the Work and Pensions Committee. The recovery of tax credits needs to be at a lower level, and I would say that debts of more than six years should be written off entirely. There are a number of lawyers in the Chamber and they know that if I try to sue them for a debt that is over six years old, a sheriff in a Scottish court would write that off and absolve the debt.

I also want the Minister to respond to a point that I made earlier during my intervention on the hon. Member for Easington. In the jobs advertisements on the DWP website, 31% of full-time jobs and 50% of parti-time jobs pay less than the real living wage of £9.90 an hour. Some 20% are advertised as paying less than the national living wage of £9.50. I will give three examples: Burger King pays £6 an hour, Pizza Express £6.56 an hour, and Farmfoods £6.66 an hour. None of the adverts clarifies wage rates for different ages, and all the companies have made substantial profits in the last year or two, so increasing the wage rates and asking them to pay more certainly would not harm those businesses all that much. I am talking about multinational companies, and I would like to know what the DWP is going to do about the adverts. Will it refer itself to the national minimum wage compliance unit, which has a number of vacancies? Perhaps we can advertise those jobs on the DWP website.

I want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said about discrimination in the national minimum wage rates, because he is absolutely right. There is a nonsensical argument that somehow young people are not active participants in the labour market. If Burger King has a 17-year-old next to a 37-year-old and they are both flipping hamburgers, they are equal participants in the labour market and should be paid the same rate for doing the same work. That is what I call equal pay. The equal pay legislation always encourages people to get the same rate for the same job, the same work.

What would happen if we increased wages? People would spend money. A false argument is also made about public sector pay—that somehow it takes money out of the economy. But that is not how it works. When people get a wage increase, they do not put it in a shoebox and hide it under bed; they go out and spend it in the economy. It means that they can afford things that they could not afford before, so they spend more on food and other items.

To touch on the contribution of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—I support his Bill and I know that he supports my Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill—there needs to be a definition of “worker”, so that we can strengthen workers’ rights. For four years the Government have been sitting on the Taylor report, which sought to address the issues, but at the last Queen’s Speech we were told that it was no longer a priority for them. That is scandalous. We need to take a real look at protection for workers and at eliminating zero-hours and other unfair contracts.

Employers are currently able to text four people to say, “The first one here gets the shift.” That has to end. People phone taxis and run out of the house to get there first, spending money as they do so, only to end up as the runner-up and get nothing. That is completely and utterly scandalous. I have included that in my Bill, because we need to address it. We also need to look at flexible working and at strengthening parental, neonatal and miscarriage leave for workers.

SNP MPs have consistently sought to strengthen workers’ rights and have promoted Bills to do so. I commend the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union for its Right to Food campaign. I will welcome that in Glasgow, because it has identified Glasgow South West as one of the constituencies in which it wants to do work. There is much that the Government need to do to address in-work poverty, before it gets even worse.