Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Consideration of Lords amendments
Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I wish him all the best for the future and thank him for the work he did as Committee Chair. One of his memorable moments in the last few months was to chair the Committee sitting in which I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) were pushing the issue of the Horizon postmasters in Scotland and what that meant for us. That was a very intelligent session, with many legal experts, and he chaired it in an exemplary way that allowed the debate to continue. I have always found him to be one of the more interesting Members of the House, when it comes to discussing such matters, and very fair. I wish him all the best.

I also wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the best for the future. Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I am going to name you as my favourite Deputy Speaker. You always used to tease me that I have a glint in my eye before I am ready to speak in the Chamber, and I would always be coy when you suggested I was going to be speaking next. I genuinely give you my good wishes, and thank you for all the kindness you have shown me as an individual and all the encouragement you give all hon. Members of the House in carrying out our duties, both to our constituents and here in the Chamber.

What an amazing week it has been. It was suggested that this Bill might not make the wash-up. If that had been the case, there would have been an almighty furore from the infected and affected community. I think pressure was applied by Members in this House, Members in the other place, and indeed the campaigners, to ensure that we got the Bill over the line. I am going to confine my observations to the amendments relating to the infected blood compensation scheme and setting up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which I welcome. I also welcome, as I did earlier in the week, the excellent appointment of Sir Robert Francis as head of the authority and of the compensation board.

Like many other Members, I am here to fulfil a constituent commitment, in particular to Cathy Young and her two daughters, Nicola and Lisa. It was one of my first constituency cases: Cathy Young came to see me at Darnley community centre. I had known a bit about the issue—in Scotland we had the Penrose inquiry, which was untidy to say the least—but I got more and more interested, and more and more passionate, because it was a clear injustice. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West suggested, I am a great believer that when it is time for an election, you do not shy away from it, but I do think that some of the events of the past couple of days have been a pity.

On Monday, when my constituent Cathy Young was down here in London, along with her daughters, I think some people in the Government knew that the general election was going to be called two days later. I do not believe that the Paymaster General did, but when he was on his feet delivering a statement about what the compensation scheme would look like, I believe that some people in the Government knew that the election was going to be called the very next day. We are in an unfortunate position, in that there are now a lot of questions that need answered and clarified before Parliament is dissolved. I am going to raise some of them in my speech, because we do seem to be in a bit of flux, which is a pity. I am going to take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents and the infected blood community, who have taken Members of this House to their hearts, as we have taken them to our hearts.

First, according to the scheme and the discussions that have taken place with the Cabinet Office, it looks as though the parents of a deceased infected child will receive the same amount as those of a living infected child. That does not seem right to me, and I think it needs to be clarified. There is also no mention of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease infection among all this paperwork.

A lot of clarity is needed on the confusion between what is a widow’s payment and what is an estate payment. The expectation appears to be that widows will distribute the money paid as an estate payment, but unfortunately that might be difficult, given the sad reality of life that some families do not speak to each other, for all sorts of reasons. It is suggested that widows would receive £16,000, which seems to be less than they receive at present. The Government are also suggesting that the support scheme payments will end, which is leaving a lot of people distressed and very worried about losing those monthly payments. We need clarity and more discussion with the infected and affected blood community to ease some of those concerns.

We also need clarity about individual heads of loss for the infected, because, frankly, we all seem to be in the dark. The uplift for psychological effects has also been omitted. Will that be covered by the injury impact award? At the moment that is not clear, so that is something else that we would want to discuss. There needs to be a discussion about what psychological support services there should be going forward, because this has been a difficult and emotional week for many people. Lastly—this is very important—if people accept the interim payment of £210,000, does that mean they are accepting all the compensation values that are currently on the UK Government website?

It seems to me that we need a lot of clarity and a lot more discussion. I welcome the fact that the authority has been set up and that this place has forced the Government to move on the issue. This has been the House at its best—just as many Conservative Members voted for the amendment tabled by my good friend the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) as did Members in other parts of the House. This is a collective, cross-party attempt to address this injustice. I hope that those questions will be answered, either in writing or in discussions with the infected and affected blood community, because we are all here to make sure that they get the justice they so richly deserve. Any further delays will mean justice denied.

Access to Redress Schemes

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I think that is true. I get the sense that there is an anti-politics feel out there. That is not just directed at some individuals; it is a systematic issue. I think that people get very frustrated at the systematic delays that can take place in order to find redress.

I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) who have done fantastic work in highlighting the Horizon scandal. I do hope that the Government act swiftly, because we have to remember that 250 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice. I believe that justice for all is vital, because justice delayed is justice denied.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I just want to emphasise to those who might be wanting to participate in the next debate how important it is to get back for all the wind-ups, including that of the SNP spokesperson. It is rather discourteous not to do so. Thank you.

Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, because it is very unusual for a Member to come in after an Adjournment debate has started and then to intervene. Let me add that it is important for everyone who does intervene to stay until the end of the debate.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you for that strict reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he or I were to secure an urgent question, the same principle would apply and the Foreign Secretary would not be here?

Legal Migration

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

The statement will be judged on whether it is pandering to the right wing of the Home Secretary’s party or addressing the needs of the economy—[Interruption.] I see them all cheering.

On the 120,000 dependants figure, can the Home Secretary tell me how many of them are children? Is he suggesting that children should be going into work? He mentioned his discussions with the Department of Work and Pensions, but what discussions has he had with the Health Secretary? The Home Office figures show that 143,990 health and care worker visas were granted in the year ending in September. That is more than double the figure for September next year, which perhaps demonstrates the real impact that creating more barriers and red tape will have on the NHS and care sector. Finally, Professor Brian Bell, chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, recently warned that limits on overseas care worker numbers could see a situation whereby

“lots of people won’t get care.”

Does the Home Secretary recognise that his proposals may cause irrevocable harm to the care sector?

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Does Chris Stephens wish to press new clause 1 to a Division?

[Chris Stephens]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

Exceptions

Amendment proposed: 14, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Angela Rayner.)

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Conference Adjournment

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to lead for the SNP in this debate, which is sometimes called “Whinge-fest”. I cannot possibly think why it ever got that nickname. This afternoon’s debate and the issues raised were of a high quality. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said how important it is that visitors come to Parliament. I had the pleasure of welcoming Glasgow South West constituents Donald and Tracy McColl, who were down last week as part of the reception run by Kidney Care UK on the importance of organ donation. I know that Donald and Tracy are passionate about that, and it was a pleasure for me to welcome them to Parliament. It is not as easy for Glasgow South West constituents as it is perhaps for Harrow East constituents, given that Glasgow South West is more than 500 miles away, but it is always a pleasure to see constituents here.

Like everyone, I pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her speech. As she talked, I reflected on my great aunt Winnie and my grandpa Charlie, who sadly both succumbed to brain tumours. If there is anything I can do for the hon. Lady in this regard, I will be more than happy to do so. It was pleasing to hear the hon. Member’s tribute to her sister, who was a brilliant political mind in her own right, and the affection that the she had for her. She made a fantastic contribution to the debate, and I thank her very much on behalf of the whole House.

The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) started her remarks on the removal of ticket offices. That is not an England-only issue, as we discovered in Westminster Hall last week, because there are plans to close ticket offices in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. I hope that the Government listen not just to the hon. Member but to the many Government Back Benchers who contributed to last week’s debate, who made their thoughts on that topic very clear. They also intend to continue to raise the issue, because people are concerned about whether the consultation is actually a consultation at all. People have doubts about that when they hear that the workers involved have been given notices of potential redundancy, and that some train companies are already advertising and investigating letting out the spaces where the current ticket offices are. I hope the Minister will give the House an assurance that there is genuine consultation on the proposals. I believe they should be scrapped, and I think that belief is shared by a number of Members across the House. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.

As someone with a trade union background, I think it is important to visit picket lines. It is an opportunity for Members of the House to hear what constituents have to say about such disputes. I hope the Minister will hear me out when I say, as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, and as my party’s justice spokesperson, that I am concerned about the dispute in the courts of England and Wales about security guards and outsourced workers. They have been given a derisory pay offer, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what the Government are doing about that.

I note that even the newspapers are going on strike, including those who work for National World, which includes The Scotsman and other papers. I offer them full solidarity and support. It is amazing to see that even the newspapers are going on strike. The reason they are is very simple: the continuation of the cost of living crisis. Far too many people across these islands are struggling with the cost of food. Many of them are in work, many are receiving state support, and many see that state support deducted every month in universal credit deductions—a crazy system—yet they also see supermarkets posting record profits. Far too many people are struggling to make their mortgage payments, yet they see the banks posting record profits. Far too many people are struggling to pay their energy bills, yet they see the energy companies posting record profits. Something has to give. The focus of the House when it returns surely needs to be on dealing with that imbalance. While that imbalance exists, more people will suffer unnecessarily.

As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) has given me the pleasure of being the justice and immigration spokesperson, and I feel it is necessary to raise the issue of Mears, the Home Office provider of asylum seeker accommodation. I am concerned to hear about the changes it is making to how it provides asylum accommodation and, more importantly, how about it evicts people in that situation. Two things seem to be going on. First, when someone receives a negative decision, it evicts them right away, by instituting what is called a lock change eviction. There is a real problem with that, as I discovered from one of my constituents. Mears handed them a letter saying, “You have a negative decision and therefore have to leave the property.” But that constituent had not received a Home Office decision. That constituent is still waiting on a Home Office decision, yet was given a letter from Mears asking them to leave the property.

Then there is how Mears treats people who have been given refugee status. People who have been given the status of sanctuary on these islands are now receiving court orders to the sheriff courts to tell them that Mears will evict them. Frankly, if we are welcoming people to the United Kingdom and saying to them that they have citizenship and status to remain in this country, why are companies—Home Office providers—taking individuals to court to evict them and dump them on to the local authority, which then has to find them emergency housing? That is not, I would suggest, an appropriate way to deal with anyone, let alone those who have been given refugee status.

I want to wish all Members a pleasant recess. I also want—I always deliberately take the opportunity to do so—to thank not just my constituency office staff, but the constituency office staff of every single Member. While we are here having the great debates of the day, they are the real heroes sorting out constituents’ problems on a daily basis. I want to pay particular tribute to Scott, Roza, Raz, Linsey, Tony, Keith, Alistair, Dominique and Greg for all the work they do on behalf of the best constituency office in these islands, which is of course found in the great constituency of Glasgow South West.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.

Building Safety

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I have a couple of quick questions.

On the developers who have not signed, the Secretary of State is obviously talking about the situation in England. Does he intend to share that information with the devolved Administrations? Those companies may have interests in devolved areas.

What happens if a non-compliant building has defects that extend beyond fire performance matters? Further defects are often discovered only after the opening works have commenced and cladding has been removed—I am thinking particularly of acoustic and thermal non-compliance. Could the Secretary of State tell us which independent bodies will manage the work to identify such defects, and how will developers be held to account for them?

Finally, what is the Secretary of State’s plan when owners and/or developers of non-compliant buildings cannot be traced?

Voter Identification

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

If the proposal for voter ID is such a sensible and necessary requirement, as the Minister claims, can he tell us why fewer types of ID are to be acceptable for voting than the post office will accept for collecting a parcel? It would seem that there is some gerrymandering going on. Some types of student ID and Oyster cards for the under-30s will not be accepted, but Oyster cards for the over-60s will be accepted. How does the Minister explain that? If the Government are disenfranchising young people, how many would they see as a success in that regard? Does he also accept that what we are now seeing would be objected to in some of the more regressive US states?

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is the problem, is it not? The Bill says “transport services”, and that could be anything. It could be buses, taxis or the horse and cart for all we know, because the Bill is so open-ended.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government will look at the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, which are an attempt to improve the Bill. Our main reason for opposing the Bill is that the Government will be impinging on devolution and on human rights, and they do not know what happens in a trade union-organised environment. That is why the Bill should not get a Third Reading.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a tiny point of information: when I am sitting at the Table, I am not Madam Deputy Speaker; I am either Dame Rosie or Madam Chair. I call Rachael Maskell.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 10, leave out from “State” to the end of line 15 and insert—

“shall lay before Parliament the draft of an order which increases each of the amounts referred to in subsection (1) above by a percentage no less than—

(a) the difference between the general level of earnings at the beginning of the period under review and the general level of earnings at the end of that period, or

(b) the difference between the general level of prices at the beginning of the period under review and the general level of prices at the end of that period, or

(c) 2.5%,

(none) whichever is the greater.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to up-rate the benefits to which this Act applies in accordance with the “triple lock” of the higher of increases in prices, increases in earnings or 2.5%.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 23, at end insert—

“(2C) No draft order laid before Parliament under section (2A) above may be made in the form of the draft until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of its effect on levels of poverty.

(2D) The assessment required by paragraph 2C shall, in particular, consider the impact on levels of poverty in—

(a) Scotland, and

(b) Wales.”

 

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the up-rating on levels of poverty, including in Scotland and Wales.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 23, at end insert—

“(2C) No draft order laid before Parliament under section (2A) above may be made in the form of the draft until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an assessment of its impact on persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, including the impact of exempting any such persons from entitlement to up-rating increases granted by the order.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact on those overseas pensioners whose pensions are frozen in accordance with Government policy.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert—

“(2C) No power may be exercised under this or any other Act so as to exempt persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain from entitlement to up-rating increases granted by an order made by virtue of section (2A) of this Act.”

This amendment would ensure that this up-rating applied to all overseas pensioners, including those whose pensions have previously been frozen in accordance with Government policy.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 23, at end insert—

“(2C) No draft order laid before Parliament under section (2A) above may be made in the form of the draft until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an assessment of its impact on those affected by the changes in the state pension age made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011; and that assessment shall, in particular, consider the impact on women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the up-rating on those whose state pension age was changed by the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011, including in particular the group known as the “WASPI women”.

Clause stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

[Chris Stephens]

It is good to see that social distancing is being applied at all times. It was remiss of me not to welcome the Pensions Minister back to his place. I did send him a private message, and thoughts of him and his wife and family are very much with us all in this House. I do welcome him back.

These are five non-controversial amendments, which I hope— [Interruption.] We seem to have a laugh already from the Minister. I do not know why. He has obviously not read these non-controversial amendments. We have tabled some probing amendments and look forward to his response.

The first amendment is a theme that was picked up on Second Reading by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), which is to ensure that the triple lock is applied in legislation. The Government would have to give an explicit commitment to maintain the triple lock for the year ahead. The amendment seems to speak very much for itself.

Amendment 2 asks for an assessment on poverty, which again was picked up on Second Reading. It is certainly our view that the Government are overseeing some brutal benefit cuts, which have exacerbated poverty, and we require a proper impact assessment of the proposed uprating and the impact that has on poverty levels in each of the devolved nations.

Previous UK Budgets have introduced some fairly punitive cuts to social security—certainly the most punitive in recent memory—and we are starting to see an active reversal of reducing and fighting poverty. The Social Metrics Commission report, which was referred to at an earlier stage, notes that prior to the outbreak 14.4 million people in the UK were already living in poverty, including 33% of children, 22% of all working-age adults and 11% of pension-age adults. The largest employment impacts of covid have been felt by those in the deepest poverty, with many at risk of falling deeper into poverty as a result of job losses, reduced hours or reduced pay. We have tabled amendment 2 to provide for that impact assessment.

Amendments 3 and 4 deal with the issue of frozen pensions. UK pensioners deserve a full uprated state pension, wherever they choose to live. Due to the historical arbitrary bilateral agreements between the UK and other countries around the world, some UK pensioners who live overseas do not have their state pension payments uprated every year. That means that their pension is frozen at the level at which they first received it for the rest of their lives abroad. As of August 2019, that affected over 5,110 UK pensioners, who we believe are being adversely affected by the UK Government’s frozen pension policy. Pensioners who have paid the required national insurance contributions during their working lives in expectation of a decent basic pension and retirement find themselves on incomes that fall in real terms year on year. Pensioners will now face ending their days in poverty because they choose to live in the wrong country, in most cases without any knowledge of the implications of their choice for their pension.

In our view the state pension is a right, not a privilege. UK pensioners who have paid their fair share of national insurance contributions should not have to suffer simply because successive Governments have failed to establish bilateral agreements with certain countries. Therefore, we are asking that amendments 3 and 4 be agreed. I also refer hon. Members to the frozen pensions campaign, of which many hon. Members are members.

Amendment 5 relates to 1950s-born women, an issue that I am sure the Pensions Minister would be disappointed if I did not mention. As a previous Speaker of this House advised in 2015, persistence is not a vice. The amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of uprating on those whose state pension age was changed by the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011, including in particular 1950s-born women, or WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, as they are known.

The numbers of ’50s-born women and men claiming working-age benefits has rocketed, and they should have been receiving their state pension. This is a double whammy, with those with occupational defined-contribution pensions to fill the gap being squeezed even further. Those claiming benefits find themselves having lost Government support in many cases, excluded either due to gaps in national insurance contributions, because of low-paid, precarious work, or because of other parts of household income. We are very aware of the history of 1950s-born women and the inequality they have faced throughout many parts of their lives. They now find themselves discriminated against on the basis of so-called equality, while those losing their jobs or seeking work are being further disadvantaged by an unequal playing field and a shrinking job market.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to our amendments.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

I, too, have made my views clear, Madam Deputy Speaker.