Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I do not want to repeat what has been said by others, but I will share my perspective on the Bill. It is in two parts, and there is almost unanimity about the first part, which deals with how we tackle fraud carried out through contracts and so on. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for pointing out some of the elements of real concern in that part of the Bill, which, to be frank, I missed. The Bill has been published for only a week, and it has been difficult to go through it. I have been somewhat distracted by the Government trying to concrete over a quarter of my constituency with a third runway at Heathrow, and elements of the Bill need further examination. To be frank, I think it will face legal challenge in some form.

I cannot welcome the first half of the Bill enough, which deals with tackling overall fraud. I was the first MP to raise with the then Chancellor the corruption that was taking place with covid bounce back loans. I raised it a number of times in the House, and I wrote to him twice. I received a standard letter that was almost identical to the response I got from the banks, which said they were going through their usual investigatory process, and then we eventually discovered that fraudulent claims for bounce back loans amounted to at least £5 billion. I welcome the first half of the Bill, because we need to be ruthless on the corruption and fraud that takes place.

However, the second part of the Bill, particularly clause 74 and schedule 3, is where we are straining, to be frank. Some hon. Members have mentioned the context already. There is real fear out there among people who claim welfare benefits, particularly disabled people. It is a result of their being targeted, and of careless language in this place and elsewhere. That is then exaggerated even further by the media, and benefit claimants become targets.

I echo what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, because I have the same problem in my constituency. Sometimes it is about telling people to claim what they are entitled to, because they are terrified of the stigma around claiming benefits at the moment, particularly older people. The atmosphere that we now have is a climate of fear, and I am worried that this debate will add to that climate of fear.

The Secretary of State said that any proposal has to be proportionate, safe and fair, but there are real concerns about the proportionality of this Bill. As other Members have said, it is a mass surveillance exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I fear that once we start down the path of surveillance in this way, others will come back with proposals for where we can go further. As Members have said time and again, there is an issue with safety. How many lessons do we have to learn about the way that computer systems and the use of algorithms have destroyed people’s lives? My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that the banks are gearing up, but they have expressed concern that the Bill is almost an exercise beyond their abilities. As a result, there will be errors, which will reinforce the climate of fear around benefits.

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise for omitting this issue from my speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have decided to penalise those who have been charged with alleged fraud? Does he feel that there should be a system in place so that they can appeal?

[John McDonnell]

That is why the code of practice is going to be interesting. The code of practice needs to be published as rapidly as possible to see what mechanisms will be available for us to protect our constituents.

I have one area of experience with regard to the flagging up of sums of money that raise concerns: in the debates that we had on tax avoidance, we talked about suspicious activity reports. There is a record of real faults and a high number of errors in that process. As a result, people have been not just penalised, but penalised unfairly and exposed unfairly. It is not that I am in any way a defender of tax avoidance or anything like that, but if we are to introduce a system, we need to make sure that it is secure and effective, and does not penalise people unfairly.

The Bill is supposed to be proportionate, safe and fair. The reason why people will feel that it is unfair is that it specifically targets people who are often in desperate need. If there was a group of people whose accounts we would want to monitor because there has been a history of fraud, and who have had to pay money back—some have gone to prison—it would be MPs. I was here during the expenses scandal. Following that experience, are we really not monitoring our accounts for undue payments and so on? Why is it always the poor who we target in this way?

As I said, I am really worried about the climate of fear, particularly among people with disabilities, which the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned. We know about 600 suicides that are related to DWP activity. We circulated John Pring’s book “The Department”, which looks at the DWP’s role in those deaths, to all MPs, and it was starkly obvious that it had made a significant contribution, if not caused them. I remember a case in Scotland in which a poet in Leith committed suicide but did not leave a suicide note; he just left a letter from the DWP beside him.

My view is that whatever steps we take in exercising the powers in the Bill, we have to be extremely careful. One of the things I want to raise—if I can crowbar it into this legislation through an amendment, I will—is that a number of us, on the basis of the work of Mo Stewart, who does research on poverty and welfare benefits, have said that we must give people assurances that they will be protected and that we will do everything we can to cause no harm, and certainly not cause any further suicides, but we must also learn the lessons of what has happened in the past.

One of Mo Stewart’s proposals is for an independent advisory panel for DWP-related deaths. We have exactly that system in place for deaths in custody. We have an advisory system at the moment for the DWP but, to be frank, it is not working. The minutes of the panel’s meetings are cursory, and it does not do detailed reports in the same way as the deaths in custody panel. If we are to reassure people out there that we really are looking after their interests, that is one small step that we could include in this legislation. I am not sure that we will be able to crowbar it into the title of the Bill, but I will do my best and would welcome other Members’ creative drafting to help me. Such a measure would send out the right message. The Secretary of State has tried to do that tonight with her assurances about the processes, but I am not sure whether that will be enough, given the climate of fear that we now have.

What are the next steps? I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee for us all to get our head around the detail of the Bill. I hope that there will be more consultation; it would be better to delay Report to enable that. I also wish to raise the same issue as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry): we were given assurances that the proposals would be implemented by co-production rather than announced from above.

It would be an example of good governance if there were a process of proper consultation. After the Ellen Clifford case, in which the High Court ruled against the previous Government on their consultation, the spirit of the Government’s response was that there would then be proper consultation, hopefully on the principle of “Nothing about us without us”. Consultation on the detail of the Bill throughout its passage would be the best example that this Government could give of that process working productively so that we get it right and we do not endanger any more people, as unfortunately has happened in the past.

Welfare Cap

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I hope that the Government will consider completely scrapping this debate in future years, because it has become farcical. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will remember that the welfare cap was introduced because of the Dutch auction that was going on in this Chamber about who could be more brutal on the poor. The welfare cap was part of that period of debate, in which anyone claiming benefits was allegedly a welfare benefit scrounger who was not willing to work for a living. That was the atmosphere that was engendered in this Chamber. At that stage, to be frank, it was deeply worrying. In many ways, humanity almost left the Chamber.

The farcical nature of the debate is that, having introduced the cap, Minister after Minister would have to come back each year and report that the cap had been breached, because more expenditure had been forced on the Government as a result of the increasing levels of poverty. I suppose that it at least gives Members the opportunity to have some discretion over issues of poverty.

May I suggest to those on the Labour Front Bench that they should remove the cap, because it has become a farcical exercise? If we are to have a debate on poverty, there should be an annual report by the Labour Government on the poverty strategy that they are now developing. I believe that the commission established by the Labour party is now working, and it would be so much better if we had a report and did not have the farcical pantomime that we have today.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene briefly to say that the child poverty taskforce’s work is ongoing, and that it regularly engages with parliamentarians and others to update them. I know that many parliamentarians have been pleased to involve themselves in that work, given the importance of tackling child poverty.

[John McDonnell]

That is a really helpful response, but it does not respond to the fact that if we are to have a focus on poverty, rather than a debate on the welfare cap, which is breached on virtually an annual basis, it might be better to have a debate on the Government’s strategy to tackle poverty overall. Then we could have a proper discussion, and even a debate with a motion that could be amended where we want to see improvements. That is what I want to get on to now.

I hope that people have seen today’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on overall poverty, which reflects what most of us know and experience in our constituencies. It is shatteringly depressing, to be frank, because it does not show any improvement over the last few decades. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) mentioned that the Tory Government introduced this measure when they came into power. It was during the period of austerity, and it is worth reflecting on what that meant.

The London School of Economics’ report and other independent reports say that 140,000 people lost their lives as a result of austerity; others have estimated that the figure could be up to 300,000. In part, that was because of the grinding poverty that was imposed on people, as reflected in all our constituencies—we saw it. I remember a time when there were no food banks in any of our constituencies, because they were not necessary, but now they are, as a result of 14 years of austerity.

If we are to have a proper debate on poverty, we need to highlight as individual constituency MPs where we think the Government should be going, so I will briefly do so on the basis of what we have seen in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. I always cite the overall figures: we have 15 million people living in poverty, including 5 million children. I think the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report says that there are 4 million people living in deep poverty, and nearly 4 million in destitution.

The statistic that always shocks me is that 1 million children are in destitution. I never thought we would use the word “destitution” again in our society; I always thought we would improve year by year and lift people out of poverty. I never thought that children would live in poverty in the way that some of my generation did.

There are groups that clearly need to be on the agenda, and my hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned some of them, thank goodness. I chair a group of unpaid carers, of whom there are 5 million in this country. If an unpaid carer is looking after a disabled member of their family, it is almost inevitable that they will be living in poverty, unless we face up to the central demand of unpaid carers, which is to address their income. It is not just about how much they can earn, which the Government have looked at recently; it is about the carer’s allowance being at such a level that people cannot survive on it.

Looking at the report with regard to families with children living in poverty, I cannot at the moment see a faster way of getting children out of poverty than scrapping the two-child limit. I am hoping that will be on the agenda as a priority when the Child Poverty Action Group reports to Parliament.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has identified that the poverty rate among disabled people is now 30%. The Government are about to consult again on the work capability assessment reforms because they lost in court to Ellen Clifford two weeks ago. I am pleased that the Government lost in court, to be frank. The basis of that decision was the lack of consultation on the previous Government’s reforms. I do not understand why our Government continued the appeal within the court, but they did. They have now lost and have been forced to bring forward their consultations on the reform of the work capability assessment.

I am hoping that those reforms will be done in co-production with disabled people—on the basis of the disability groups’ principle, “nothing about us without us”. My fear is that an overhanging £3 billion-worth of savings is required from the DWP on this issue. If that results in cuts to individual benefits, I think there will be uproar within our communities and across this House. What is also interesting in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report is that the poverty rate among people who are suffering long-term health conditions is 50%. The work that the Department of Health will now do in walk-in advice surgeries, for example, and the focus on mental health, will be key.

The household benefit cap overall is iniquitous. It forces families into poverty, particularly in places such as London, because of the high rents that are hitting people. According to the Joseph Rowntree report, the poverty rate among renters in social housing is 44% and in the private rented sector it is 35%. The Government’s refusal to accept the amendment to introduce rent controls, which was tabled by a number of Labour Members, was extremely disappointing. The Government could at least devolve that power to the individual Mayors so that they can represent their communities and introduce rent controls where necessary. I believe that Sadiq Khan has expressed his support for that power to be devolved. With rent controls, we could tackle the housing crisis that we face within our constituencies.

When we talk about poverty, we need to come forward with an agenda that will tackle it at pace, and I do not think that, in our discussions in the future, a welfare benefits cap in any form will assist in bringing forward the reforms that our constituents so desperately need.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I certainly will, Dr Murrison. I welcome the Minister to his position. I am so pleased that he has been given such an easy policy to resolve as his first task.

Reference has been made to the 2019 manifesto commitment, so let me briefly set it out:

“Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences. Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

We did that on the basis that those women had paid into the system and been given a date to retire, but had not been given adequate notice. As a result, their life plans were changed dramatically and they suffered consequences. We co-produced a scheme that was expensive—I accept that—and that was going to pay out over a five-year period, but it would have meant that we resolved the matter once and for all. We were not elected, and that scheme never went forward.

When I saw the ombudsman’s investigation, I thought that at least something would be done. When the ombudsman’s report came out, I was not satisfied with it, but I thought it was at least something. Not having that implemented has crushed people; it has crushed their confidence in the system. I say to my own party, which is now in government, that we need the Government to sit down with the ’50s WASPI women and, if necessary, to either implement this scheme or mediate for an alternative, but we need action.

I say to the Minister that this issue is not going away. We are not going away. The women are not going away although, tragically, some of them are dying. This campaign will go on until we secure justice.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Northern Ireland has one of the highest rates of economic inactivity in the United Kingdom, which is a real concern for me, and, I am sure, for him. I have already spoken to the Minister responsible. There are things happening in Northern Ireland that we can look at to see whether there are lessons that could be learned for elsewhere in the country. We will always work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that our plans match people’s needs in every part of the country, because that is what his constituents and the country as a whole deserve.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Given the empty Opposition Benches, it looks like the Conservative party has adopted a policy of a three or two-day week to tackle the unemployment problem. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. From the tone taken and the statement given today, my understanding is that the Government acknowledge that it will be support, not sanctions, that will tackle this issue overall, and that that support will come from new employment centres in our constituencies, staffed by fully trained, motivated and well-paid staff. The Secretary of State mentioned meeting businesses and mayors. May I ask that she also meets the trade unions? The PCS parliamentary group would welcome a meeting with her to talk through the roll-out of this programme, which will benefit both the staff and the recipients of their services.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Our 16,000 work coaches and other frontline jobcentre staff are our biggest asset. Some have worked for the DWP for 25 or 30 years, because they care about their communities. They have been stifled by a system that had an overwhelming focus on monitoring and administering benefits. They know what their local areas want and need. I spoke to the head of the TUC yesterday about our plans. I am sure that either the Minister for Employment or I would be very happy to meet the PCS to talk about how we take these plans forward.

Social Security

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

When an issue such as this has been so heavily whipped, it is very difficult. I have not the eloquence to persuade people to vote another way, to be honest. I just want to make this as a personal statement, so that my constituents know why I am voting the way that I will today.

I agree with the Government on so many points on this issue. First, this is the most toxic inheritance that any Government have ever had. I did a report last September that said that between 2010 and now we have lost £80 billion, not £20 billion. On the £20 billion black hole, we sat here and listened to a Government making commitments that they knew they would never have to fulfil, because they knew they were going out of power. I agree with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we must ensure financial stability and that our income matches our expenditure. I agree with the Prime Minister on the principle, and always have, that any burden should be placed on those with the broadest shoulders. This is where I disagree: the heaviest burden is not being placed on those with the broadest shoulders but on some of the poorest.

Large numbers of my constituents do not claim pension credit, and I will be out there like everyone else trying to persuade them to apply, but a lot of my voluntary organisations have been savaged by a Tory council. We do not even have the advice mechanisms left. I think that, at best, we can get to 70% or maybe 75%, but one in four will not be able to claim that benefit. I have large numbers of people who, for example, worked at the airport and got a little pension at the end, and they will be tipped into not qualifying. They are living in accommodation that those on the Opposition Benches provided, which is squalor, to be frank—they are living in not insulated, freezing accommodation. They are the ones at risk, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) said, of going to hospital and not even surviving.

We are in an unnecessary position, because there is so much else we could do. We do not need to put the burden on the poorest. We need to make sure that those who can afford it pay. That means redistributive tax measures, equalising capital gains tax, tackling the corporate tax relief issues that we must confront, and making sure that the City pays its way in financial transactions. We do not have to be here. I hope that people learn the lesson as we move towards this Budget not to put us on this position again, where we take a decision based on, I believe, misjudgment. It certainly flies against everything I believe in as a Labour MP about tackling inequality and poverty in our society. I was not elected to impoverish my constituents and put them in this hardship. I regret voting for a motion put forward by these characters in the Opposition, but I will have to because there is no other mechanism. I want to look at my people back in Hayes in the face and say that I did the right thing.

Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have lived this campaign for about 10 years, as have a number of other hon. Members. Today, we have heard unanimity from speakers from all political parties across the House. Unless we can get some action quickly, I despair of what parliamentary procedure is left to us. I do not want to go back to swinging the Mace about again, but something needs to happen fairly quickly because anger is building up, in the Chamber, outside and among the WASPI women.

I do not share the view of some hon. Members about the equalisation of pensions. I supported the equalisation of pensions, but not on the basis of the retirement age for women increasing. I thought we were entering a period when we would be reducing the age that men had to work until, so we would equalise pensions that way. The argument then was about whether the economy could afford it. The reason I was trying to equalise pensions by reducing men’s working age was largely for working-class people.

In many of our cities, the difference between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor is something like 20 years. We were told then that life expectancy would be continuously improving, but it has stagnated. Many people do not work in a sedentary role, so as we increase the retirement age—it is now going up to 68 and beyond—they will work until they drop. That is not acceptable, particularly in the economy that we have, where we could redistribute wealth, lower people’s retirement age and give them a decent pension.

I was involved in designing the scheme proposed in 2019. We commissioned Lord Bryn Davies, who is one of the most respected pensions experts in the country, and worked for two years with WASPI and the different groups to design the scheme. My commentary on the proposals by the ombudsman reflects some of the work that was done. We looked at a straightforward scheme. Going into individual cases would take decades, to be frank, so we looked at a flat-rate scheme for everybody, based on an average loss of £100 a week. That resulted in an average payment of £15,000, which is a lot of money. We costed it at more than £50 billion, which seemed a lot of money at the time, but it is less than a third of what the Government saved by increasing the pension age for these women. In addition, we looked at different options: should we pay it over a four or five-year period and reduce the cost to £12 billion a year. When I said during the debate that this was a large amount of money, somebody said that we had just paid out £500 billion to bail out the banks when they had crippled the economy. Then we went into 2020 and covid hit us.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made some excellent points, but he asked us how we could fund decent pensions and the requisite compensation. I looked up the figures. As a percentage of GDP, the UK spends 5.7% on state pensions and pensions benefits. In Italy, the figure is 16%. In France, it is 13.9%. In Denmark, it is 10.1%. The OECD average is 8.2%. By any measure, we are miles adrift.

[John McDonnell]

I also looked at what had been provided in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest in our country since 2010. It was £100 billion. I looked at how much had been given in corporate welfare benefits, and, again, it was £100 billion. Therefore, although it sounded like a lot of money at the time, in the context of fairness, it was the right amount. That is why the ombudsman’s offer of between £3,000 and £10,000 is derisory; it has to be more than that. The reason for having a flat-rate compensation scheme is for ease of administration, and I would recommend that wholeheartedly.

We have heard today about the individual hardships that people have endured. We cannot allow that to go on any further, which is why this scheme must be expedited. The ombudsman reports and is accountable to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I serve. We have considered each of the reports as they have come forward. We were critical about the delays that were taking place, so we impressed on the ombudsman the urgency of the situation. When we got the report back, we found that it had at least accepted that there had been an injustice and that there needed to be a compensation scheme. We waited with bated breath for the Secretary of State to announce at least the timescale and the timetable for that compensation scheme, but all we heard was that the Government would go away and consider it. That was weeks ago.

PACAC wrote to the Secretary of State and asked for a timetable, stressing the urgency of the matter, because, exactly as Members have said, people are dying. Some people cannot wait, because they either will literally not be here any more, or they are living in poverty and hardship.

We received a reply this week. The Secretary of State said that he would be bringing forward a statement “in due course”. What that means is nothing; it is meaningless. As a Committee, we have agreed to write again to say that that is unacceptable and that we need a clear timetable in which this matter will be addressed and proposals brought forward that we can vote on and, if necessary, amend in this House.

If this Parliament is sovereign and the Government are accountable to this House, I believe that there is a majority, an overwhelming majority, of Members who will vote for a compensation scheme that is readily accessible, and also at a level that reflects the hardship that people have suffered and the scale that most Members would want to see.

As we go into a general election, the issue will not go away. The WASPI women and their campaign will not go away. People have expressed admiration for that campaign, which is not just impressive; it is terrifying. Unless a proposal is brought forward, it will become an election issue. I think people’s votes will stand or fall in many constituencies on the basis of the decision coming out of all the political parties. Voters will, however, blame the Government the most, because there is an opportunity now, as others have said, to make a statement by the recess with a timetable for implementation. We could almost certainly agree the funding. We looked at how to raise the funds. Some could be borrowing, but the Government normally have contingencies for legal liabilities. This is a legal liability. We have the opportunity to act now, and I urge the Government to wake up and listen to what the whole House is saying. If today’s response is not satisfactory, we will be back next week, and if necessary every day until the recess until we get some sense out of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

Sorry, I won’t.

During the course of the ombudsman’s investigation, state pension age changes were considered by the courts. In 2019 and 2020, the High Court and Court of Appeal respectively found no fault with the actions of DWP. The courts made clear that under successive Governments dating back to 1995, the action taken was entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. During those proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to conclude as a fact that there had been

“adequate and reasonable notification given by the publicity campaigns implemented by the Department over a number of years”.

We recognise the importance of providing information in good time about the state pension age to help individuals to plan for their retirement. Since 1995, the Government have used a range of methods to inform people about the increases in state pension age, including the provision of detailed and personalised information. The methods have included leaflets explaining the legislative changes, pensions education campaigns, press advertising and direct mailing exercises to millions of people. People have been able to request personalised state pension information since the 1980s.

[John McDonnell]

We do not know the timing of the general election—possibly November, but maybe later—but it is likely that we will have only about 10 sitting weeks between now and a general election. Can I impress on the Minister to take back to his fellow Ministers that we need the proposals rapidly in those 10 weeks, and certainly before recess, if we are to get a viable scheme through Parliament?

[Paul Maynard]

I am happy to confirm that I will take that message back. I have heard it clearly today. I understand the points about the Work and Pensions Committee’s findings, too. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Secretary of State—and me, in oral questions on Monday—say that we wish to have no undue delay. That remains the case. I recognise that people are frustrated by that phrase, but it is an accurate phrase. We do not wish undue delay. As I keep saying, it is a complex issue. It is not just a matter of ticking a box. It needs to be gotten right, and we understand all the ramifications and options that are open to us.

Between April 2000 and February 2021, the DWP provided more than 41.2 million personalised state pension statements, and it continues to do so. As well as issuing letters to the 6.9 million women and men born in the 1950s notifying them of the state pension age increase, the DWP sent around 17.8 million automatic state pension forecasts between 2003 and 2006, which included a leaflet explaining that the state pension age for women was increasing.

As I have outlined, the Government recognise the importance of this issue. The ombudsman report has been laid before Parliament, and we have been invited to take a view and engage with this issue. Today is one part of that. We will listen to the views of the House with great seriousness. The report is currently being given active and extensive consideration within the Department, by me and by the Secretary of State. We will seek to provide a further update without, as I say, undue delay, and I hope to give the issue the airing that it deserves as soon as that is practically possible.

Health and Disability Reform

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the importance of work in the context of mental health. That is my strongly held belief. He is also right to raise the issue of the fiscal sustainability of our welfare system. If the public are to continue to have confidence in that system, we must get the balance right between the requirements of the taxpayer and our absolute determination to support those most in need of help.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the Northern Ireland Executive. He is right: it is possible for Northern Ireland to decide to manage its benefits in a different way to England. That is not traditionally what has happened. Traditionally, Northern Ireland has followed the moves that we have made. As to discussions, absolutely, there are always close, ongoing discussions between my Department and our counterparts in Northern Ireland.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that the Government’s approach is fair and compassionate. Can he tell me what is compassionate about the language used by the Prime Minister over the past fortnight, when he has referred to a “sick note culture”, implied that people who are forced to rely on benefits do so as a lifestyle choice, and, today, talked about the arrests, seizures and crackdowns on benefits claimants? The Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which comprises the major charities that we have all worked with, described the speech as “chilling”, “threatening” and “stigmatising”. Does the Secretary of State not realise that the language that the Prime Minister has used increases prejudice against disabled people and contributes to the escalation of hate crime against disabled people?

[Mel Stride]

The Prime Minister shares my view, which is that it is really important that we achieve the best possible outcomes for the people whom we are discussing in this statement. He cares a great deal, and I think he said at the end of his speech that he wanted to help many people, some of whom are watching the screen flickering away while their opportunities drift off into the distance—or words to that effect. That speaks from the heart. That says that we have a Prime Minister who cares deeply that opportunities in our society should be made as widely available as possible. That is a view, a characteristic and a quality that I admire and that I share with him.

Disability Benefits

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will try to be as brief as possible, so that others can contribute. Before I come to the general topic, I want to make one specific point to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said.

I am a champion for Action for ME, the myalgic encephalomyelitis campaign. The organisation has written to a number of us to emphasise its concerns about how narrow PIP assessments are. ME sufferers are losing the ability to access the relevant benefits themselves as a result. They are simply asking the Minister to commit to what the previous Minister committed to, which was to meet them so that they can work to co-produce a system that enables them to have full access. I dealt with my first ME case about 25 years ago, when ME was not recognised and there was a lot of stigma attached to it. These people have suffered on the quiet. It behoves the Government to sit down with that group and work through the process.

I want to take the debate up where my hon. Friend left off: on the impact of the system on individuals. Those who were at the Select Committee might recall the evidence that was provided with regard to Michael O’Sullivan. I dealt with his case 10 years ago; I met his family, the lovely Anne-Marie and Declan. He had suffered mental health difficulties and had attempted suicide already. He was then assessed; he was declared fit for work, and he could not cope with it. He committed suicide. That was 10 years ago.

Some Members will know John Pring from the Disability News Service, who performs an excellent role monitoring cases and providing information to many of us. He has particularly monitored recent cases that relate to people coming under pressure when seeking to apply for universal credit. He gave three examples from the past couple of years. I will give brief details; I will not use any names.

A disabled woman who was left traumatised by the daily demands of universal credit took her own life. Days earlier, she had been told that she would need to attend a face-to-face meeting with a work coach. She would shake and cry every time she had to log on to her universal credit journal, which she had to do every weekday to check whether she had received instructions and to avoid a sanction. She had already had a six-month sick note from her doctor explaining that she was not fit to work, but she was expected to go through the whole process, and she could not cope with it. The DWP was told about her mental distress, her suicidal thoughts and her fear of the Department. She took her own life.

There was another suicide months later. Someone had a long history of depression and anxiety and had been engaging with mental health services. He had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; he was then discharged. A psychiatrist who saw him two days before he took his own life told the inquest that he believed that the anxiety had been exacerbated by the whole process of the universal credit application.

Another person died a month after taking an overdose that caused irreversible damage to her liver. The coroner did not believe that she intended to take her own life, but nevertheless the coroner wrote a prevention of future deaths report to the DWP highlighting how the DWP had failed in its duty to maintain protection.

I raise those cases because John Pring and others had to put in a freedom-of-information request to get a report that was produced by the Prime Minister’s implementation unit on the harm caused by the process and the suicides that were taking place. It was four years before that report was produced. It had been covered up in the PMIU, and publication was prevented. Some of us have been calling for that report on the Floor of the House of Commons, but we have been denied access. We were calling for it because there were recommendations in it about the duty of care that the Department owed to people identified as vulnerable, and specific actions needed to be put in place. There is a further report that should be produced with full openness and transparency. I commend Disabled People Against Cuts, which has run a campaign year in, year out about the issue.

When it comes to disability benefits for PIP, the work capability assessment, the application process for universal credit and the pressures that people are put under, the system is putting lives at risk. What Anne-Marie called for, which I think is right, is a statutory duty of care to be placed upon the Department, with particular regard to vulnerable people. I also agree with Anne-Marie and others that there should be an independent public inquiry into the harm the Department has done over the last 14 years through the brutal way benefits have been administered, particularly for those who are vulnerable with mental health problems.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Women’s State Pension Age

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The report is absolutely clear that the DWP’s systemic failure is that it did not even draw upon and learn from its own research into the failure of communication with those women. In addition, it did not investigate properly and respond to the complaints. That is straightforward in the report. Perhaps as a warning, I say to the Secretary of State that the anger out there will be not that he has not come up with a scheme immediately, but that he has not even acknowledged the failings of his own Department. That is why the report recommends that Parliament deal with this matter. Members of this House share the same feelings as the ombudsman and the WASPI women: we have no confidence in the Department for Work and Pensions to resolve its basic failure of decades ago.

[Mel Stride]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to one part of the report’s findings, where the ombudsman found maladministration but did not find injustice. The point that I have made to others in the House is that we need to look at this report properly. It is a report of 100 pages, to which my Department provided 1,000 pages of evidence, and which we received on Thursday. The only thing I can do responsibly is come to the House and make it clear that we will act without undue delay and interact with Parliament in an appropriate manner, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.

State Pension Changes: Women

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Sometimes we do not have a collective memory in Parliament. I will briefly go through some of the history of the last 10 years in which I and others have been dealing with this issue, because we need to learn its lessons.

In debates held here in 2015 we recognised the immense suffering people had gone through and the injustice of the case itself. Between 2015 and 2017 we tried to ger cross-party agreement for a compensation scheme, but it was rejected. As shadow Chancellor at the time I met with all the various campaigning groups, including the WASPI women, and we asked Bryn Davies—now Lord Bryn Davies—a prime pensions expert in the field, to develop a scheme, which we brought forward in 2019. In a normal electoral cycle it would have been implemented by agreement, hopefully by 2020-21, but it was not, as we had an election campaign at that time.

The scheme balanced compensation with ready implementation and was relatively straightforward and simple. However, at the time the argument against it was cost—that at £12 billion a year over a four-year period it was too expensive. The Government had already saved £200 billion from those affected women; £48 billion may well have seemed expensive, but I remind people that at that time interest rates were on the floor.

The compensation scheme was relatively cheap, would have been paid over a limited period of time and would have delivered compensation to those women. I believed it was a legal contingent liability anyway and that it should have been brought forward from the Contingencies Fund, even if we were then forced to borrow, relatively cheaply. Had that happened, that scheme would have been paid out by now and the affected women would have been compensated. The 216,000 women who have died would have received something—but tragically they are now lost.

The conclusion is that I do not want to be here in another five or 10 years’ time arguing the case. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely): we have the autumn statement. A relatively simple scheme should be brought forward so that the money can get out the door very quickly. I fear there is no sense of urgency from the Government, so we must create a cross-party sense of urgency. My other fear is that the ombudsman will bring forward its final report and the compensation levels offered will be trivial, which would be unacceptable given the suffering that people have gone through.

I appeal to the Government to listen to hon. Members on both sides of this House. The Government rejected and opposed the our earlier scheme, and by doing so they have probably enhanced the cost of compensation now. Let us grasp the nettle. Sometimes tackling injustices can be expensive, but it is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I have already given way, and I am running out of time. I do apologise.

I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made today. I would like to set out further the range of support available both for those making provision for their retirement and for those who have reached state pension age.

In 2016, the state pension was reformed with the introduction of a new state pension to be simpler and more sustainable. It had the clear objective of providing the foundation for private saving. In this way, the state provides a base to which people can add to provide the pension they want through their retirement.

The new state pension improves outcomes for many women, carers and self-employed people, who often did less well in the past. State pension outcomes are projected to equalise for men and women more than a decade earlier than they would have under the old system. On average, women receiving the new state pension receive about £18 a week more than women under the pre-2016 system. Under the new state pension system, women currently receive an average of 97% of the amount that men receive, compared with 85% under the pre-2016 system.

Automatic enrolment has helped millions more women to save with a pension, many for the first time. Participation rates for women are catching up with those for men. Pensions participation among eligible women working in the private sector was at 86% in 2022, up from 40% in 2012.

Pension credit is extra money to help with daily living costs for people over state pension age and on a low income. It tops up a person’s other income to a minimum of £201.05 a week for single pensioners and £306.85 a week for couples. People with a severe disability, carers and those who are responsible for a child or young person who lives with them can get more. Pension credit can also include extra amounts for certain housing costs such as ground rent or service charges. The pension credit case load is just under 1.4 million people, of whom 66% are female; in fact, of the total case load, 63% are single women. People receiving pension credit may also get help with other costs, including rent, via housing benefit, and council tax.

The latest statistics show that by 2021-22, the poverty rate for pensioners had decreased by two percentage points since 2010. For both female and male pensioners, there was a decrease of two percentage points over the same period. In 2021-22, there were 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than in 2010. By 2024-25, working-age and extra-costs disability benefit rates will increase by 6.7%, and relevant state pension rates, including the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, by 8.5%, following the 10.1% increase in April 2023.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Maynard]

I am about to conclude, because I have only a minute left before the hon. Member for Strangford needs to have his concluding say.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for raising such an important issue, which I know concerns very many people—thousands across each of our constituencies. I have the greatest sympathy for anyone who has found themselves in difficult circumstances, but I believe that the welfare state can be and is effective in providing support for those who need it. In particular, there is a range of established support that this Government provide for people either nearing or over state pension age. Additionally, we have made cost of living payments available to those who are most vulnerable.

As I have outlined, the Government take the matter of state pension age extremely seriously. The Department is committed to giving the best service it can, and we will very carefully consider the ombudsman’s final report.