Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Anne McLaughlin

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin]

If it is in order for me to say so, that is the last time I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene. When there is expenditure, it is about political choices. I choose to support people who are at their lowest, and I choose not to pay £400 million to redecorate Buckingham Palace. As he knows, I was talking about the long-term hidden costs.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is contrasting supporting the most vulnerable with paying for Buckingham Palace. I speak on behalf of my constituents, and their median salary is £480 a week. I am not talking about Buckingham Palace; I am talking about being fair to people in my constituency who earn £480 a week. I am sure she agrees that that is not a great deal of money, and those people require fairness, just like the vulnerable people who Members on both sides of the House have mentioned.

[Anne McLaughlin]

That reminds me of a constituent who wrote to me about his benefits being sanctioned for 13 weeks and about how he is now back in work and how he hates benefits scroungers because they caused the sanctioning to happen.

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Lady let me develop my argument? That is just about turning people with very little against people with nothing. My point is that the Member for Louth and Horncastle—

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, because the most important thing in this debate is that I say “hon. Member”, is it not? She said that she is not talking about Buckingham Palace, but her Government are, and she is supporting the Government to redecorate Buckingham Palace, while saying that we cannot support people.

The other thing is that the people on £480 a week may well be unemployed at some point and may well face benefit sanctions.

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No, I will not let the hon. Lady in again.

It does not take a genius to work out that it will cost more if we put people out on the street. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South cited the figure from Crisis, which has done some studies. It found that 21% of the people it spoke to said that they became homeless as the result of a sanction. How much is it going to cost to rehouse people and to deal with the health and mental health problems that result from their having nothing, losing their home and being on the street? All sorts of figures are being batted around, but according to a story in Scotland’s Daily Record, the National Audit Office has said that, when the figures are added up, it costs £135 million more per year to implement benefits sanctions than we save by them. I think that that proves the financial argument.

On the academic argument, I have a report on welfare conditionality from the Universities of Glasgow and York. I am happy to send it to people if they want to read it. The report shows that conditionality in the welfare system does not work, if by “working” we mean that it helps people to move into employment. It does not help people into employment. The first wave of findings found that, in all the research on the impact of the current sanctioning regime, only one individual thought that sanctioning made them more active, which is less than 2% of those interviewed. Later, I will read out what somebody said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

May I just say that I think everybody is honourable in case I forget to say it again?

These are not isolated cases. My friend could not do that presentation and had to sign on because she could not afford to lose unlimited amounts of that meagre income. She had to refuse that business opportunity. The damage it did to her reputation and self-confidence was incredible. She could not say to the person inviting her to the conference, “I’m awfully sorry but I have to go and sign on that day,” because she was positioning herself as a serious business person. She lied, but did so unconvincingly and was offered no more opportunities. The impact on her self-confidence and ability to apply for further jobs or develop her business was dramatic. I know that because the person I am talking about is me.

That was only three years ago. The decision did not make me any more likely to find work; it made me far less likely to find work. I felt powerless and my confidence went. I continued to apply for jobs, but how many jobs will someone be offered when the words they write make it quite clear that they are not feeling it and do not have the confidence to do the job? If I have time, I will tell a story of being unemployed that shows why conditionality does not work, and what does work.

I have no notes on the moral argument because it should go without saying. Let us take one single person—this is not about parents who are struggling to feed their kids—who is living on £73 a week. Does any hon. Member imagine that that is easy or manageable?

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No. I want to talk about the people who need to be talked about.

It is a struggle. If that person’s washing machine breaks down, they cannot get it fixed on £73 a week. They have holes in the bottom of their shoes and it is raining non-stop—perhaps that is just a Glasgow thing—and cannot afford to buy new shoes. They cannot afford to be part of what their friends and family are part of. The Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said that they can apply for 60% of their benefits, which means they can get £40 a week if they know about it and if they are successful. They cannot live on £73 a week, never mind £40 a week. That is immoral. The only reason for sanctioning is to say to people, “You are too lazy and you are workshy.” It is punishment and that is all it is.

I had bad and good experiences. My good experience was that I had an adviser who had faith in me. He built my confidence. I had already been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It was not as if I was lacking in confidence, but it goes instantly when people are treated as if they are children, or as if they are work shy and do not want to go out and earn their own living. Nobody wants not to work. There are reasons why people do not apply for work, and we need to investigate them. They might be lacking in confidence. I have met so many people who say, “Who would employ me?” So they are not applying for jobs because they think, “Who would employ me?” Nobody is helping them and people are taking their money away from them, so that they lose even more confidence. It is unacceptable and it just does not work.

I have not seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”; I just need to go to a constituency surgery; I do not need to see the film. However, I will see it and we should all thank Ken Loach for making it—I want everyone to see it. I am not saying that members of the Conservative party do not know anything about real life—I would not say that—but for those who have not experienced anything like this situation, please go and watch it. Government Members said it was fiction but it is based on fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will not give way to somebody with lots of power; I want to talk about people with no power. The reality is that the true motivation behind these sanctions is political ideology that says, “We are better than you”.

Now, if this Bill is not passed today—I am guessing that we will not get it through today—[Interruption.] There they go again, Madam Deputy Speaker, telling me that I do not have the right to speak. I am sick of hearing that in this House. It is important that what we are saying to people here is—

[Victoria Atkins]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that passions are running high in the Chamber but I do please ask the hon. Lady to reflect what Members across the Chamber are saying—

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Anne McLaughlin

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the situation she has just described in which youths place an order with a dealer and then distribute the substance among their friends is entirely consistent with the law as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The message is that if you buy the drug and then distribute it, you are a supplier in the eyes of the law. I would be interested to know why she thinks there should be a distinction between these substances and the more serious drugs that are dealt with under the 1971 Act. Surely we are still trying to achieve the same aim: to stop the supply of harmful substances.

[Anne McLaughlin]

My understanding was that we were trying not to mirror the Misuse of Drugs Act. We have moved on, and this Bill is not about criminalising individuals for possession, as they can be under the Act. The Bill does not have to mirror the Act exactly. The key issue is the effect that criminalising a young person for a foolish mistake can have on their life chances. Drugs blight enough lives already—that is certainly the case in my constituency—and we do not need to penalise someone who is acting on behalf of his or her peer group, a small group of friends, without any financial motive. These young people are not drug suppliers. Obviously, we might question the sense of their decision to buy drugs, but it should not be a criminal offence. A young person could be pressurised by their peer group to purchase these substances, and they might do so in order to gain the recognition of their peers, but if they were caught they could end up with a substantial criminal conviction.

[Victoria Atkins]

Surely the point is to introduce clarity to the young people that the hon. Lady is describing. Ecstasy is a class A drug, and if a young person buys it, they risk going to prison for a very long time if they are prosecuted and convicted. If a young person buys one of these new psychoactive substances that is minimally different from MDMA, and the dealers get round the problem by saying that it is just a little bit different from ecstasy and therefore does not fall under the 1971 Act, that young person could be placed in a very difficult position. They would have to be a scientist to know the difference between the two substances. My question is: should we not be encouraging clarity to differentiate between those drugs, to enable young people to know that they should not be buying those substances and distributing them?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am not arguing that we should not be discouraging young people in that way. I am arguing that if someone buys these substances for themselves and a couple of friends, we should not criminalise them as though they were drug dealers when they clearly are not. I worry that, further down the line, Members of this House will be contacted by the parents of someone who has foolishly purchased such a substance on behalf of himself and one or two friends and has been convicted of supplying drugs. That young person’s life chances would be greatly diminished. Of course we hope they will be discouraged by our telling them what will happen to them if they make these purchases, but I certainly do not think we should punish them and label them as a drug dealer for stupidly buying stuff for their friends. On the whole, people pass a strong moral judgment on anyone with any kind of a conviction relating to drugs, but an even stronger judgment is passed on anyone convicted of supplying drugs. We are talking about a young person getting these substances for himself and his friends, not a young person who has become a drug dealer, yet that is what the conviction would be for.

Donald Trump

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Anne McLaughlin

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend reaches my point before me. I promise to deal with New York values at the end of my speech.

I turn, as I must, to Mr Trump. His comments about Muslims are wrong. His policy to close borders, if he is elected as President, is bonkers. If he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubs in my constituency, they may well tell him that he is a wazzock for dealing with the issue in that way. I sense that my constituents, whether in New York or Tetney, in Minting or Mablethorpe, feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that Mr Trump may say. We in Lincolnshire—in fact, we in the United Kingdom—should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he wants in New York, New York, or in New York, Lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world, because our British values are stronger than some among us here today appear to fear.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Lady understand that it is all very well for us to say, “We feel strong and we can withstand this, so you can criticise and offend and we will stand up to you,” but she and I are not Muslims living in a country where Islamophobia is already rising? Comments such as his, from someone who has such influence over so many people and is getting so much media exposure, can only harm not people like us, but those on the streets who feel vulnerable. They do not feel as strong as she and her constituents claim to feel.

[Victoria Atkins]

I can only give the hon. Lady reassurance. As someone who used to prosecute criminals for a living before I came to this place, any defendant who tried that on in court would get very short shrift from me and, I am sure, from the jury. We must not allow people who behave in such a disgraceful way—criminals who beat up other people on the basis of their religion or beliefs—to remove themselves from that by blaming someone on a different continent. If they beat up a Muslim on the streets of Britain, that is their responsibility and no one else’s.

One of the values that best sums up our country is the freedom to exchange thoughts and ideas within the law—the freedom to persuade or rebut; the freedom to inspire or eviscerate in argument; the freedom to speak; and the freedom to listen. That freedom is not always comfortable. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) referred to the rising problem in some of our universities about allowing free speech and providing safe spaces for it, for fear that people may be offended, but the freedom of speech must mean that we will sometimes be offended. It means allowing those whose views we hold to be unedifying to speak their minds. Crucially, it also means the freedom to reply—to say, “No, Donald Trump, you are wrong, and you are wrong for the following reasons.” That freedom was hard won over centuries and it must be defended jealously, because it goes to the essence of democracy and the rule of law.

Opposition Members may rely on the argument of consistency—indeed, one Member said, “So-and-so has been excluded, so Mr Trump must be excluded.” Let us remind ourselves of the threshold that must be met for that to happen. The Home Secretary must conclude that the person’s presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good.

The House of Commons Library helpfully provided a briefing paper for the debate, which gives 14 examples of people who had been excluded by Labour Home Secretaries by May 2009. Of those, 10 were considered to be engaging in “unacceptable behaviour” by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence. Nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour in order to provoke others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes. Five were considered to be fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the UK and one had spent 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-year-old girl.

I ask a simple question of those who would ban Donald Trump: are they really saying that his conduct, no matter how offensive it may be, meets those criteria? If Donald Trump poses any question for us as a country, the answer is not to fuel his publicity by talking about banning him—incidentally, this debate is doing that nicely—but to rebut his arguments. The answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument on why he is wrong about the contribution of American and British Muslims to this country.