Budget Resolutions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It seems, in some ways, a very long time since 2022. Do Members remember 2022? It was when we had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who put the country in hock to the bond markets, made mortgages rise, and put the British public through a living hell. What a contrast that is with what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done today. She has put money into the NHS, she is backing investment in our country, she is supporting start-ups, and she is supporting the British public in a difficult cost of living crisis caused by the Conservative party.

I want to go into what the Chancellor has said today, but I cannot do that without first making some comments about the Leader of the Opposition. Who was “shambolic”, Madam Deputy Speaker? The last Government. Under them, mortgages went up, and children entered poverty in greater numbers. Which party created child poverty? It was them, not us. Which party has consistently talked down the country since the election, been negative at every stage and downgraded people’s confidence in our country? Which is the party of zero hours contracts? The Conservative party. Which party failed consistently to invest in our schools, the NHS, our prisons and our justice system? The Conservative party.

Under the last Government, the country spiralled. Under the last Government, I spent a decade looking at public spending in the privileged role of Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I saw those mistakes close up. I saw the big nasties that would be left, whichever Government was elected in July last year, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for tackling those challenges. Productivity, on which we have seen challenges as a result of the decisions of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has been low since 2010, and who was in government from 2010 onwards? The Conservative party. The last Government left the legacy—they left the big nasties—and now it is this Government’s job to clear it up.

Amid all the noise, however, we must remember that the markets are listening and that we all need to be responsible: Government, Opposition, and every Member of this House. Of course, speculation always swirls around a Budget; that is inevitable because we are all lobbying, quite rightly, on behalf of our constituents, our local businesses and every other group that we represent. We are all seeking to persuade our Government to do the things that we want done, and we are all impatient to see those things happen yesterday, which is why we were elected to make change. However, the leaks about the Budget were very unfortunate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will grapple with that and ensure that it does not happen again. The most recent leak of the OBR data, moments before her Budget, is undermining for us all, so we will raise the matter with the representatives of the OBR when they appear before the Treasury Committee next week.

The Committee has looked at a number of the issues on which there was speculation, including child poverty, gambling tax and cash individual savings accounts, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for tackling some of those. Let me deal first with cash ISAs. In a report, our Committee recommended that the Chancellor should not reduce the limit on cash ISAs from £20,000. She has reduced it not to the £10,000 that was being mooted, but to £12,000. For short-term savers, there could be a real issue. With targeted support coming next year, along with work on the advice guidance boundary review, there is an opportunity to bring the British public into a more investing environment, and to encourage them to invest, or invest more. However, for many years, we have all been warned that our capital is at risk—it has been rather like the warning on the cigarette packets that we might die if we smoke—and it takes a long time to turn that culture around.

I pay tribute to the financial literacy and inclusion campaign backed by the Financial Times, which is running a three-year programme at City of London Academy, Shoreditch Park, in my constituency with young people in years 7, 8 and 9 to teach them about financial literacy. They are the investors of the future, but it will take some time for them to reach the point when they can invest. I am pleased that the Chancellor exempted over-65s from the limit, because that short-term saving is important, particularly for an age group who are planning for retirement or, indeed, already in retirement.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for start-ups, which are a huge issue in my constituency, and her widening of enterprise support, which will doubtless be considered by our sister Committee, the Business and Trade Committee. Encouraging companies to list in London is absolutely right, and the three-year stamp duty relief will hopefully be enough to encourage that. We have seen too many companies listing elsewhere, and we need them here in the UK to grow our economy and create jobs. There are many technical issues involving reviews of business tax that I am sure we will examine. We are putting our slide rule across all the measures in the Budget today.

My right hon. Friend referred to £4.9 billion of efficiency savings to be made by Government Departments by 2031. That is a potential challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee—another sister Committee—will probably consider that, alongside our Committee. However, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend will give His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more powers to pursue promoters of tax avoidance schemes; we know what the problems have been in that regard. The Treasury Committee has the privilege and the responsibility of challenging HMRC regularly, and when its representatives appear before us in January, we will be able to ask them more about the matter.

I have been thinking about why we need a Labour Government, and one of the central planks for me, as a constituency MP, was the issue of child poverty. We need a Labour Government because of what the Conservative party did to children living in poverty. There are now 4.5 million such children, and the figure has risen by nearly 1 million since 2012. Two million of them are in deep poverty. One in three live below the poverty line, in 2025, in the United Kingdom. Children are sharing beds with their siblings or parents, and turning up to school tired. Every weekend, I visit people in my constituency and see this challenge. Just last weekend, a woman showed me the bedroom that she shares with her now disabled husband, who had a stroke three years ago. There was a curtain between their double bed and a narrow space so that her daughter could share their room. Luckily, they have a second bedroom, where her two sons sleep in a bunk bed. That is the reality for so many children, and the poverty has an impact on their learning and their ability to perform in the world. It is a shameful stain on this country that when the present Government came to power, the UK ranked 37th out of 39 advanced economies in respect of child poverty.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said about child poverty, and I welcome the lifting of the cap, but is there a little bit of a blind spot in this Government when it comes to rural poverty? Their own figures show that by the end of next year, the average hill farmer will earn barely above half the national minimum wage. Is the hon. Lady as disappointed as I am that the Government have not tackled that in the Budget and, indeed, have not got rid of the family farm tax, which will tax many of those farmers out of existence altogether?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman is a veritable champion of his constituency and of rural issues. There are very important changes to the minimum wage and the living wage, which will have an impact, and there is a lot that can be welcomed for rural areas, but I recognise that his constituency and mine sometimes have very different challenges, and I welcome the fact that he champions that here. Obviously, I have not had a chance to look through the Red Book and the Blue Book, but we on the Treasury Committee will bear that in mind.

Seventy per cent of children in poverty are in working families, so the chutzpah of the Leader of the Opposition talking about people making a lifestyle choice really makes my blood boil. In 60% of households hit by the two-child limit, the parents are in work, and 15% of affected families include mothers whose babies are too young for them to work.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said it better than any of us could: the Victorian rape clause means that women face humiliation. Notionally, it affects 3,600 women, but we on the Treasury Committee heard evidence that women will not put themselves or their children through the humiliation of using that policy. Any policy that required a workaround like that is outdated and long needed to be gone, and I commend my right hon. Friend for tackling the issue.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her forensic analysis of our Budget. Will she take an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition, so that she can apologise for that awful policy and its impact?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

It is interesting that the Opposition are doubling down on the policy, which is humiliating people.

Let us be clear: the birth rate in this country has fallen year on year for the last three years. It is well below where it needs to be. I think that only Luton is at 2.1, which is about where the rate needs to be. Actually, that is a bit lower than where it needs to be. This is a real crisis for the country in the long term, so it is absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is investing in the future of Britain. Young people in my constituency may be poor, but there is no poverty of ambition. Children I met when I was elected 20 years ago are now doctors, barristers and enterprising businesspeople, in spite of the challenges they faced. Just think about the ones who did not get there because they could not overcome the challenges of deep-seated poverty. We should invest in our young people, and that is what this Government are doing, including through apprenticeships, the youth guarantee and the nine youth hubs in London, one of which is in my constituency.

I really welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend listened to the Treasury Committee on the gambling taxation regime. We are a cross-party Committee, but our report was unanimous that there was a real issue with the lower tax on online gambling because of the relative harm that it caused, compared with going to the races or popping along to a local betting shop. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to change the gambling taxation regime; that will contribute to taking children out of poverty.

On the ISA changes, I caution my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Treasury is watching very closely the impact on mortgages and lending by building societies, because that was a concern in the evidence we heard. If we want to get people into their own homes through the building that will be going on, we need to make sure that mortgages are available to them, so I hope that the Treasury is in ongoing dialogue on that issue, despite the change having been made.

We need to recognise some of the challenges with green taxes. I have not had a chance to go through the Red Book in the time since the Chancellor sat down, but I very much welcome her bold and necessary decision to take on the challenge of the reduction in fuel duty as people move to electric vehicles. This has been a point of debate for at least the last decade or so. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we kept challenging the Treasury on how it would fill the gap, and my right hon. Friend has been bold and right to address the challenge. It is a difficult one to grapple with, but it is great that she has done so. We look forward to hearing more about that. On supporting people with the cost of living, the freeze on rail fares, keeping the bus fare cap and the ongoing freeze on fuel duty will help people get to work.

The increase in the minimum wage and the living wage are vital. In my constituency, some people work four jobs over seven days, just to make ends meet. Even if they are lucky enough to have a council tenancy, it is hard to make ends meet on those salaries. Going into private sector housing is completely unaffordable for those on that kind of income. Contrast that with people who work four days a week because they can afford to do so. I am not criticising them for that life choice, but that is the challenge that we face.

There has been a lot of discussion about a high-value property tax. In my constituency, around 1% of properties are worth over £2 million, and that is in central London. The Opposition might scream foul on this, but in London’s zones 1 and 2—my constituency is right on the edge of the City and 10 minutes from Liverpool Street—around 1% of people will face the surcharge. That is a small price to pay when families next door are living in the deepest poverty, as I have described. It is also great to see some movement on energy bills, which is having a really big impact.

There is a lot more detail in the Budget, which the Treasury Committee will look at over the next couple of weeks. We look forward to welcoming the Chancellor to the Committee on 10 December, when we will ask her to explain, but also challenge her on, the detail of her Budget, as is our proper constitutional responsibility.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

As ever, my hon. Friend is totally correct. Of course the welfare state should be there for those people in temporary difficulty, but it cannot be a lifestyle, which is what ends up happening.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, then I must make some progress.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The Committee has heard evidence on this. It is an absolute fallacy, which we need to nail, that people choose to have more children to get more benefits. That is not the case. People fall on hard times, and that safety net is there. The ambition of my young families in Hackney is immense, but they are held back. There are a lot more systemic issues about poverty, but this measure will tackle poverty for this generation, and we need to welcome it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree that we need to get Ukraine every support that it needs. Our support is iron-clad, which is why we hosted the coalition of the willing on Thursday. Members will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that we are working closely with partners to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused, and we will find the lawful and most effective ways to do that.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Karim Ennarah is an internationally recognised human rights activist who has been subjected to a travel ban by Egypt and has been stuck there since 2020. What is the Foreign Office doing—or what can it do—to ensure that he is able to come to the UK to join his wife in my constituency?

[Mr Falconer]

I am familiar with the case and have met the man in question and my hon. Friend’s constituent. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further. I am travelling to Egypt this weekend and will continue to be in these sorts of discussions.

Middle East

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the letter that President Abbas wrote to President Macron, where he was clear for the first time that there can be no role for Hamas. We will make the assessment on recognition in the coming weeks, but clearly the E1 settlement has moved the dial even further away from where we were a few weeks ago. Recognition is a process.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary said that diplomacy fails until it succeeds. We have talked often in this House about the tragedy unfolding. As we approach the second anniversary, and as he goes to the UN to discuss and agree the recognition of a Palestinian state, can he explain to the House what threshold would need to be reached for a UN peacekeeping force to ensure safe passage of food and welfare to those who are starving and dying, even as we stand here today?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will understand that the Israeli Government have set themselves against some of the UN agencies that would need to uphold that, so I think that that feels unlikely from the conversations that we have had, but I do applaud the work of Cindy McCain and the World Food Programme to get essential food to people who need it.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

That is a crude caricature of a very serious issue. I took a decision back in September in relation to international humanitarian law in suspending arms sales that could be used in Gaza because these are very serious issues—I understand the issues that are before the ICC and the ICJ, and they are very serious. It is because votes in this Parliament helped to set up those mechanisms and made us part of them that I leave it to them to make the necessary determinations that they must properly make.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have seen the slaughter of innocents going on for far too long, and as others have said, people are dying right now. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday with France and Canada. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that he had met Vice-President Vance. To get a breakthrough, because Israel is not listening, America needs to be part of this. Can he tell us about that conversation with Vice-President Vance and whether he has any hope that we can make a statement jointly with the US as well?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be deeply concerned about what is happening. We had hoped, and I know Vice-President Vance had hoped, that we would get a breakthrough in the ceasefire that was being brokered by the United States, Qatar and Egypt. She will have seen that the United States has been able to strike direct deals—it got its hostage out last week by going direct to Hamas—and that the breakthrough we had hoped for towards the end of last week has not come through. I do not foresee a ceasefire deal at this stage. That is why the only way forward is through more diplomacy, not less. It is not through military means. We have to be crystal clear that we disagree with the course that the Netanyahu Government are now taking.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I will therefore speak to my new clauses 17 and 18, which would provide important protections for hospices, which are currently lacking in the Bill. New clause 18 makes it crystal clear that any regulated care home or hospice can decide whether to provide assisted dying on its premises, and new clause 17 makes it clear that they cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assisted deaths, and that their public funding cannot be conditional on their providing this service. Whether one is in favour of assisted dying or not, we must preserve the rights of organisations, companies and charities to choose whether to offer it. They must never be forced into it by public funding being conditional on the provision of assisted dying.

I note that new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), would expand the protection for individuals not to participate in the assisted dying process if they so wish. It seeks to protect employees from being subjected to any detriment for participating or not participating in the provision of assisted dying. This sensible protection would ensure that if an NHS hospital provides an assisted death service, any member of staff who does not want to participate would not have to do so and would suffer no detriment as a result. However, there needs to be a sensible mechanism balancing that against the employer’s right to set their own policy on assisted dying, and that is what my amendment (a) to new clause 10 seeks to do—we have already talked about that, so I will not go over it again.

I did want to talk about process and family, but it looks like I will not have time to do that. I will end there. I thank you for your patience and generosity, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that I have had the chance to speak in support of the amendments, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2, which stand in my name, and consequential amendment 2, and I will touch on others at the end. These amendments—without being dismissive of those who helped me draft them—are imperfect. Those of us who are not the promoter of the Bill have not had the support of Government drafters in tidying up the Bill. We need to acknowledge that the Bill in front of us today is the Bill—more or less—that will or will not be passed by this House. For any amendments made, by the point of Third Reading, that is it—there will be no further opportunity to redraft them.

Sadly, one of these amendments was rejected in Committee. If those changes had been discussed before the original Bill was published, or even in evidence before Committee, we would have been in a better place to get that tighter drafting that is needed in making good legislation. We are not a debating society; we are now legislating for a law that would enable the state to assist in people taking their lives. I am sad that we are able to discuss these amendments only now. I did not get the opportunity to be on the Bill Committee, but I commend all Members who spend so many hours discussing and debating those issues.

The ramifications of the clauses I want to talk about are important for potential users of a service, for medical professionals, for families and for other health professionals. The Bill currently allows doctors to suggest assisted dying to a patient who has not raised it themselves. This, I believe—as I know many others do—presents a serious risk that terminally ill patients, already highly vulnerable, will feel pressured to end their lives.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I realise that my hon. Friend’s new clause 1 comes from a good place, but can she not see that it is inconsistent with our ethical obligations as doctors? That is why the British Medical Association has suggested that although there should be no duty to raise the issue, neither should there be a ban on doing so. I ask her to consider that the Australian state of Victoria initially had such a measure—a so-called gagging clause—as part of its Bill, but it was removed because it caused confusion and was detrimental to patient care. Should we not learn from that?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which brings me to something I really want to address. As I said in my opening remarks, these are imperfect amendments. I will get into some of the conversations that I have had with a number of people about this. I am one person; I have not been able to consult the BMA, as a Government or a sponsor could, for example, but I am aware of its concerns. However, we are talking here about very definite and irreversible decisions on life and death. I know that many doctors have had conversations about that, but not to the level required to legislate for it. This is a different set of circumstances, but I very much appreciate his point.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many people do not have confidence in the face of authority, and that if a doctor raises assisted suicide with them—no matter how tactfully or professionally—they will feel that they are being steered in that direction?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Given her many years as a constituency MP in the same borough as me, we both know many such vulnerable people. Dr Rachel Clarke, a hospital palliative care doctor, said:

‘If, for instance, you say to a vulnerable patient who has just been told they have a diagnosis of terminal cancer, “Have you thought about assisted dying?”, I would suggest that stating it broadly like that is a form of pressure and that you are potentially unintentionally coercing that patient.’––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 75, Q93.]

So we are in a very difficult space, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) highlighted, with his background as a practising GP. We recognise that. As I have said, this is an imperfect process to deal with that challenge, but it is a very different set of circumstances compared with the other advice that doctors give.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Speaking of doctors, I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Johnson]

I rise to support the hon. Lady’s new clause 1. As a doctor, I am very aware of the trust that the public place in doctors and the seriousness with which they take what we say. If a doctor gives somebody information about assisted dying, it is quite reasonable for that person to think that the doctor is suggesting that they should take part in that process, or is hinting that their death will be dreadful and trying to be kind. If doctors are allowed to say, “This is a good process,” more people will take it up than would otherwise have wanted to.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Lady.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I need to get into the arguments for my two new clauses, so I will not take any more interventions for the time being.

I believe that there is a serious risk that terminally ill patients, who are already vulnerable, could feel pressured into ending their lives sooner than they would wish to. We know of examples of patients who felt suicidal and low at the point of diagnosis, and at that point they are vulnerable—this is not the debate in which to make points about that—but often, with good care and pain relief, they can move away from that decision. There is also the issue about the burden on family.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I must make progress.

I also want to talk about how the teenage brain works. The Bill would apply to a young person at the age of 18. A month or so after they reach that age, they could undertake an assisted death. Let me highlight some of the good conversations that I have had with people who have generously given their time to speak with me about these important issues, which I am worried have not been addressed at any point in the Bill’s passage, except for a short and important discussion in Committee.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Let me finish my point about doctors’ advice before I move on to the issue of 18-year-olds. Dr Alexandra Mullock, who is a senior lecturer in medical law and co-director of the centre for social ethics and policy at the University of Manchester, said in written evidence to the Bill Committee:

“The freedom for a registered medical practitioner (RMP) to raise/discuss the option of seeking help to die in clause 4(2) is ethically problematic.”

She also highlighted:

“Professional advice regarding treatment will be received by the patient as a recommendation”,

as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) said. That is a really big concern. The UK coalition for deaf and disabled people is very concerned, and would like this provision removed as well.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Does she also acknowledge that, given what we are beginning to know about coercive control, the suggestion by a doctor—innocently; maybe neutrally—that this is an option could be latched on to by someone who is coercively controlling the person who may choose assisted dying, and we would never find out that that had been the case until after the person’s death, if at all?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point in relation to my amendment and others: in this House, we made coercive control illegal in legislation only in recent years. This is such a big issue, and what is different about the Bill—this is why some positions are particularly challenging—is that we are talking about irreversible decisions.

I want to talk a bit about how the teenage brain works. Children and young people are particularly susceptible to being influenced, including into dangerous and risky behaviour. In a number of countries, assisted dying laws have been expanded to allow children and young people to end their lives. We need to be alert to that very real risk. I am impressed by the work of the Children’s Commissioner, who recently published a report into children’s views on assisted dying. It was heart wrenching to read. Those with illnesses and disabilities were particularly concerned about what the Bill means for them. These children have not really had a voice in the debate so far, and there is talk about whether the Bill may apply to children with life limiting or severe progressive diseases.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I, too, am greatly concerned about our young people. I was at an event in my constituency of Lagan Valley the other night, at which it was said that almost all our young people across the UK are having their mental health impacted by social media. If we throw this into the mix, it has the potential to do untold damage. I do not support the Bill, but I applaud everybody who has taken the time today, regardless of their view, to try to make it better. However, I have grave concerns about its ramifications.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. If I have time, I will touch on social media, but I want to put on the record my thanks to some of the professionals who gave of their time to speak to me in preparation for my amendment.

[Catherine Fookes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Not at the moment.

I had some very interesting conversations with Sophie Scott, professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London; Sallie Baxendale, professor of clinical neuropsychology at UCL; Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, professor of psychology and cognitive neuroscience at the University of Cambridge; Dr Richard Hain, consultant and clinical lead, all-Wales managed clinical network in paediatric palliative medicine at Cardiff and Vale university health board; and Dr Anna-Karenia Anderson, consultant in paediatric palliative medicine and medical director for Shooting Star children’s hospice. I am only sad that there has not been a bigger debate, because the process has not allowed for one. I apologise to them in advance that I will not be able to do justice in the time that I have to the very many careful and thoughtful points that they raised.

[Catherine Fookes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have said no—I need to explain the issues, and give due credit to the people who have assisted me in raising them.

Adolescents’ brains develop differently. From the age of puberty, there is a rapid change in how young people make decisions. As adults, we have the experience to imagine what the future might look like, but younger people, up to about the age of 25, often cannot plan or predict their future because that part of the brain has not developed well, and they are not good at understanding regret. The comparisons are different for adults. Role models and social groups matter a great deal.

[Christine Jardine]

I appreciate the hon. Lady giving way, given the time constraints. Does she acknowledge the concern that many of us have about not telling patients all the options, particularly young people who are now so social-media literate? Their automatic reaction is to Google everything; in fact, we all do it. The danger is that, if they are not told all the options and given the guidance that is available, they will go to Google and see yet more of the dangerous suicide attempts that we see at the moment.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I do not have time to completely unpick the hon. Lady’s points, but to have something positively suggested is a big issue for young people, so the social media aspect is important.

The social network matters. At the point of puberty, teenagers will look to their social group, which will massively influence their behaviour in a way that their families will not. Adolescents are more likely to take risks: their neurodevelopmental underpinnings are different, and pathways between the rational and the emotional parts of the brain are not fully developed. In “a hot situation”, where there is a lot of emotion, they take more risks, particularly because they do not have the ability to think about the counterfactual. In this case, the counterfactual is not being here anymore; that is a very difficult thing for a lot people to understand, particularly young people.

The ability of young people to think flexibly and change their minds is in the front of the brain, which does not always react to the—

[Ellie Chowns]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I need to make some progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to speak at great pace.

Teenagers are passionate about their beliefs and peers can change their minds in a way that their parents often cannot. There is not always a logical decision-making path. A doctor would carry weight. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), a child may be thinking about dying but somebody—that doctor or professional—could make their decision a legitimate option.

There are many issues in palliative care. We talked about Gillick competency, but to be clear, young people under the age of 18 can make their own decisions about healthcare. Even young people under the age of 16 can have such conversations because of Gillick competency, which is a good principle, but the issues around mental capacity and Gillick competency are often not well put in place—

[Catherine Fookes]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have said no to my hon. Friend—I have moved on from the points that she wanted to talk about.

The law is ambiguous about Gillick competency. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Gillick competency triangulates through the person but also the condition, so it relates to the complexity of the condition as well as to the individual. Peer pressure is a big part of what has an impact on people, as well as the view of the professional or doctor.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I need to make progress.

On the issue of children making a decision at the age of 18, they could have a conversation with someone about dying and then on their 18th birthday sign on the dotted line; the conversation would not even have to be at that point. We need to understand that even at the age of 18 or 19, young people’s brains are in a different place on this. If we pass the Bill, we are saying that at the age of 18, 19 or 20, people could have an assisted death. We need to understand the ramification of that for those people.

I want to ensure that I cover some of the other points that hon. Members have made. I do not have time to go through all the amendments that play into this, but strengthening the panel and the safeguards, as well as the issues that hon. Members have raised around coercion and capacity, are very important. There has not, however, been time to work through how those issues have an impact on younger people. If only I had time to go into some of the evidence I have received—I have only been able to give a hasty run-through because of the pressure on time today, which is a sign of the challenges of the process. We have not got time to go into the detail that we need to consider.

Socialisation is important. Social media has a very big impact and we need to understand that that will have an impact on young people making their decisions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am trying to do the maths on my timing. I fear I have run out of time. I would like to speak for longer, but I sense from the mood of the House, and from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that hon. Members do not wish me to do that. I am very concerned that the issues have not been properly discussed. I again remind hon. Members that if we vote on the Bill, these matters have not been fully tested with the professions concerned, as we have heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists this week and from many of the other professions who would have to grapple with the legislation in practical terms. What we are doing now is legislating for the real practice of delivering those measures, and we have not had time to fully explore that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not give way because of time.

The new clause would not affect any duty relating to a requirement to provide information. That concern over conscience was raised earlier this week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in its press release, which announced its opposition to the Bill and set out its concerns that clinicians are still required to signpost patients to information on assisted suicide. It noted:

“For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved”

in the assisted suicide process. New clause 10 will not allay such concerns. When those representing clinicians express such concerns, we ought to listen to them—listen to the professionals. I encourage Members to listen to the royal college and the 250 GPs opposed to the Bill.

Turning to amendment 101, I have a word for our Down’s syndrome community. In a statement published on 9 May, the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation said:

“We are deeply concerned about the risks of coercion and undue influence. In particular, people with Down’s syndrome and intellectual disabilities are at significant risk of coercion and undue influence, in part because of their need to trust and rely upon caregivers and medical professionals.”

I cannot comprehend why the hon. Member for Spen Valley declined to accept an amendment in Committee that would have provided explicit protections for people with Down’s syndrome. Again, that highlights the flaws and the risk of coercion. The reality is that vulnerable people who are more prone to coercion—for example, people with learning difficulties or a history of depression—have not been explicitly protected in the Bill.

This Bill is not safe and cannot be fixed. It is weaker than it was before the Committee began, and I encourage all concerned Members to recognise that it is flawed and that no amendments or tightening up will ever make it right to legislate to end one’s life with a legal drug.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people have put in to speak today, and we appreciate the huge challenge to you, chairing this debate, and for the Speaker’s Office. It is normal for private Members’ Bills that the debate continues in an orderly and proper fashion so that everyone can have their say. We appreciate that that is much more challenging in these circumstances, but we have heard many times that we are running out of time, Members are not taking interventions because of concerns about time, and the informal time limit has dropped to five minutes. I am aware that the Front Benchers still need to speak. It is in the power of the Chair, of course, to refuse any suggestion of a closure motion. I would like to ask you whether there is any thinking going on about whether this debate can continue. Many of those who have tabled amendments have not yet been called to speak, and I, for one, would like to hear their points of view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She would not wish me to anticipate any decision on a closure motion at the current time, I hope. She makes a valid point that many Members who wish to speak this afternoon will be disappointed, but she will also know that there will be further debate on the second group of amendments.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concern is that this is the last debate on these amendments. It is in the control of the Chair whether to grant a vote on a closure motion. I simply make that point, as I am sure you heard, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I reassure the hon. Lady that I have heard her point. I repeat that I will not make a pre-decision on any closure motion that has not yet been moved.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone. I set out very clearly in my statement the answer to a number of points that he raised. Matters have also been set out very clearly by the St Helena Government. They have indicated their full agreement. In fact, they were fully part of the process and there was full consultation with them. This is a mutually beneficial win-win for the UK Government and St Helena. As I said, the Chief Minister of St Helena has said that it is in a unique position to help the UK Government, and this will strengthen its reputation and enhance its partnership with the British family.

The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions about the arrangements with Mauritius. The Foreign Secretary spoke at great length about the arrangements with BIOT recently. The agreement will go through this House in the proper way, as has been set out, and will face proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that it will attract scrutiny, and that is only right. As I explained, this is a contingency agreement for the period before any agreement with Mauritius comes into place; after that, it will take any migrants. The situation on BIOT is not suitable, long term, for migrants. We have explained that at great length.

I have to say that the Government inherited a mess, and we are taking pragmatic, sensible and proactive measures to address the situation. I am hugely grateful to St Helena for the role it is playing. This is a mutually beneficial win-win. The hon. Gentleman asked where the funds will come from. They will come from the FCDO. We already have a long-term established partnership with St Helena, and it has hugely welcomed this plan. It will help it to deal with a number of ongoing issues. I have set out the details fully. The full details of the agreement are also available from the St Helena Government.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is welcome to hear St Helena mentioned in the House. The money going there amounts to an increase of about 20% in financial aid from the UK this year, which is sorely needed in a community that is so challenged; but will the Minister explain how he will convey people from BIOT to St Helena, given the travel difficulties, and tell us what conversations he has had with the Chief Minister and her Ministers about where these people will be accommodated, if they do arrive?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in St Helena, which has been long-standing. I understand that she visited the island recently, and I welcome her ongoing engagement with the people and the Government there. We have made it clear that we would support the transfer of anyone who did arrive, but let me reiterate that no one has actually arrived on BIOT since 2022. This is a contingency measure only, and, of course, it is not a safe place for people to attempt to go to. This is about closing that route and ensuring that if anyone did make that attempt, they could go to a safe place and be properly supported. The St Helena Government have made clear how they would accommodate and integrate people in that community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

Our ambassador raised Mr Kara-Murza’s case in person with Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister on 19 January, repeating our request for consular access. The Foreign Secretary met Mrs Kara-Murza, and Mr Kara-Murza’s mother, Elena Gordon, on 1 March. We remain in close and regular contact with his family and legal representatives, and we will continue to keep his case at the top of our agenda.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent, Evan Gershkovich, was detained by the FSB—the Federal Security Service—almost exactly a year ago, on 29 March 2023. He is an American citizen who lives in the UK and works for The Wall Street Journal. His continued detention is another stain on Russia. Although Mr Gershkovich is not a British citizen, is the Minister conferring with his American colleagues to ensure that Mr Gershkovich is released?

[Leo Docherty]

Yes, I am happy to confirm that. I will seek an update from our head of mission in Moscow for the hon. Lady’s increased awareness.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I have been on this journey with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) since I served on the Public Accounts Committee when she was chairing it—shockingly, it is now 10 years on from that. We began to deal with some of the domestic issues with companies that had international footprints—the large companies such as Starbucks, which we had before the Committee. I remember that rollercoaster ride and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on that work.

Let us be clear what the impact of the lack of beneficial ownership registers is. Others have touched on security, but I wish to talk about the tax that is lost. We are in a cost of living crisis, there is a huge pressure on the Exchequer and we have an election looming, with each party that is likely to be in government wanting to make promises to the electorate. This money is being hidden away without people knowing where it is and that is definitely having an impact on the tax take; it is an absolute opportunity for tax avoidance and tax evasion, in particular, and it is key that we have this register. In my constituency, a lot of properties are owned by offshore companies, some of them in the overseas territories, and it is impossible for the residents of those buildings to know who their landlord truly is; they face an address with no name attached, and no responses come from those landlords. It is against natural justice for people who have their homes owned by others as finance vehicles not to be able to have access to them.

We need to make sure that this issue is dealt with, because if we do not deal with the issues of money laundering and economic crime across the piece, and we deal with them only domestically, without a strategy for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, there is a risk that the problem will simply move, rather than be resolved. People with money and advice about where to hide it, if they are minded to hide it, will find ways to do that where those ways exist. This loophole needs to be closed and we have a prime opportunity, with the Foreign Secretary, the very person who, as Prime Minister, was backing that a decade ago, now sitting in the House of Lords and at the Cabinet table. He could be driving this, so I urge the Minister to speak up for his new boss. I hope that the Minister has been given the go-ahead to give us some comfort today that this issue will finally be revolved. There are only a few weeks until the end of the year, and I hope he can give us some comfort on the timeline.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your co-operation. For the first wind-up, I call Richard Thomson.

Overseas Territories

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. A lot of detailed questions have been asked in the debate; I will pick them up and make sure that the relevant Departments follow up on them.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I will, but then I need to make progress because Madam Deputy Speaker is giving me an eye, and we know what that means.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I was recently in conversation with my opposite number, the chair of the public accounts committee in Montserrat. That committee has concerns about some expenditure from the governor general’s office but has been told by the British Government, as have I, that it is not possible for the committee to have sight of it. I recognise that there are challenges in a small jurisdiction, but I would be grateful if I could talk to the relevant Minister about the matter, because I am quite concerned.

[David Rutley]

I will gladly arrange that meeting.

We are supporting the overseas territories with funding dedicated to constitutional and international obligations on the environment and climate, and exciting work has been taking place in that respect.

I highlight the work that we are doing in preparation for this year’s hurricane season. From 1 June, HMS Dauntless —which, importantly, has a helicopter on board—will provide persistent maritime presence in the Caribbean to offer humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

Many Members talked about the importance of providing security support. We have done that and will do more of that, particularly in respect of the challenges faced by the Turks and Caicos Islands. As the Minister for the Americas and Caribbean, I am well sighted as to the situation in Haiti. We continue to work with international interlocutors in like-minded states to see how we can provide support for that situation. We are providing electronic border systems for the Turks and Caicos Islands, along with maritime surveillance aircraft, which will be a real help.

Members made many points and I am afraid I will not be able to answer them all. We continue to work with the Falklands to mitigate the impact of tariffs on fisheries and we are open to all opportunities to do so.

We are making progress, and will continue to ask for progress to be made, on registers of beneficial ownership. Sanctions apply and are being applied by overseas territories. Frozen Russian assets in the territories amount to more than 9 billion US dollars. The sanctions are biting and playing an important role.

Turkey and Syria Earthquake

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her thorough introduction to this debate in which she highlighted the real challenges with some feeling. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who described so well, but so sadly, the reality of life for someone who has been through these devastating circumstances. I will pick up in particular her point about family reunion.

I am very proud to represent a borough in Hackney where just over 3% of the population—about 7,000 people —have Turkish and Kurdish backgrounds. I and my north-east London colleagues, whom I am glad to see here, represent what we might describe as a little Turkey. We have a huge engagement with our Turkish-speaking and Kurdish-speaking communities, who contribute an awful lot to our society.

I will talk a bit about family reunion. I appreciate that the Minister has to defer to the Home Office on these issues, but the point must be made very firmly that we have examples in very recent times of reunion schemes to bring people from areas of devastation into the UK. The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, looked at the Syria scheme, which was actually well worked out. Obviously that mostly involved people without family here, but 20,000 of them were settled, so there is a precedent. There is also a precedent in the Afghan scheme, although that was not about family reunion, of course, but resettlement routes for people to whom the UK owes a duty of care.

In addition, there is the example of Ukraine. There were rocky moments, but the family reunion and Homes for Ukraine schemes are worked-up schemes that are there to pick up anew. There was also Hong Kong, and back in 1996, when I was a young councillor, we welcomed people from Montserrat. Although that was from an overseas territory, we nevertheless had the capability, the capacity and the mechanisms to ensure that we could get people into this country.

I represent, as I say, around 7,000 Turkish and Kurdish people—well, I do not represent them all; I share that with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). There are many thousands of others across north-east London, and, as we have heard, in Newport and across the country. There are families here who have jobs and housing, who could quickly scoop up family members caught up in the devastation.

Many years ago, when I was the Minister responsible for dealing with issues such as resettlement, we would take a number of people from United Nations camps, but we now know that there are aid agencies there who can identify families or individuals who are very vulnerable, such as lone children, and who could be quickly routed through the existing compassionate route that we operate and support as the United Kingdom. The communities here—not just the individuals, with their housing, jobs and money that could support those people, but the communities in Hackney and around north-east London—could do a great deal to support people. We have groups such as the Alevis and very many Turkish community groups and organisations that would be very welcoming. My own mosque, Suleymaniye mosque, is a Turkish foundation mosque as well.

We know it takes time to get these schemes right, so there is no time for delay. It is important that we have child protection and other protection routes in place, so that we are not just accepting people for wrong reasons. Those such as the 15-year-old orphan girl my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East described need to come somewhere safe, and there is no safe place for them in the region at the moment because of the challenges.

I urge the Minister to give us an answer today on the Government thinking on this. I have already written to the Home Secretary, and I will continue to work with colleagues to press this issue. We are not necessarily talking about great numbers of people—sadly, with so many deaths, there will be very few people in this position —but at the very least we must reach out to those vulnerable lone children and other vulnerable people. I look forward hopefully to the creation of a wider scheme to support people, but could we please get moving on supporting vulnerable lone children and vulnerable family members of those currently in the UK as a starting point?

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I will now impose a four-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I will, but I would like to make some progress because I am trying to answer everyone’s questions.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

It is looking like the Minister may be running out of time to talk about family reunion, which I appreciate is another Minister’s portfolio. Will he undertake to ensure that the Home Office writes to all Members present in detail about what considerations are ongoing on that issue?

[David Rutley]

I was definitely going to come to that issue. Do not worry, it has been raised enough. I recognise its importance. The things is that we want to ensure we provide support to relatives impacted by the disaster, and when family members do not have British visas they will be able to apply by one of our standard visa routes, which remain available. The application centre closest to the affected region, in Adana, Turkey, has now reopened following temporary closure after the earthquake, which will support people looking for a UK visa and enable those who have already applied to submit their biometrics.

Those who have been affected by the earthquake are able to relocate safely within Turkey, and we have reports that some of those affected by the earthquakes in Syria have crossed the border as well. Our primary focus is on providing support. We will keep in close contact with the Home Office on the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). It is a vital issue.